International Cntual Cnmnuntarg an &t jjfllg Smptos of % @lft anft UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF The Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford; The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D., Master of University College, Durham; The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary^ New York. 5J gTKtflaroron$> tauinft lBimtfairoiwj oak olQ) stlt }a anwtam^ (doll «Ii no MO HIIIZHOTKIH 3HT JK-IU'/U ra.a tH3vina aajjofl jauMAa .vafl sht r(I.(I rA.M t^3MMUJq GM-'IJA .vail 3HT ra.a .aoowa 2ut8udua aajflAHD .vafl hht ,^r>V/i\YY \$v.V\VY\'i\. "\s» "Wtt^jrVX w. = Hithpalpel of verb. prob. = probable. impf. = imperfect. pron. = pronoun. imv. = imperative. ptc. = participle. indef. = indefinite. Pu. = Pual of verb. inf. = infinitive. q.v. = quod vide. i.p. = in pause. i.q. intrans. = id quod, the same with. reft. = reflexive. = intransitive. rcl. = relative. juss. = jussive. sf. = suffix. = singular. Lat. = Latin. sq. = followed by. I.e. = last citation. St. = status, state, stative. lit. = literal, literally. siibj. = subject. loc. = local, locality. subst. = substantive. m. = masculine. s.v. = sub voce. mpl. = masculine plural. syn. = synonymous. ms. = masculine singular. Syr. = Syriac. ABBREVIATIONS XVll tr. trans. = times (following a num- ber). = transpose. = transitive. v. v. vb. = verse. = vide, see. = verb. V. REMARKS Biblical passages are cited accord- ing to the verses of the Hebrew text. Numerals raised above the line (i) after numerals designating chapters indicate verses (Gn. 63); (2) after proper names refer to editions of books (Ges.27). Proper names usually refer to works upon Esther given in the His- tory of Interpretation. INTRODUCTION. I. PLACE OF ESTHER IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. § I. PLACE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE. In codices and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible the Book of Esther is one of the KHhubhim or 'Writings' that constitute the third division of the OT. canon. The various arrangements of the books that form this collection are exhibited in the following tables: I 2 3 4 Ruth Ruth Ruth Chr. Psal. Psal. Psal. Ruth Job Job Job Psal. Prov. Prov. Prov. Job Eccl. Song Song Prov. Song Eccl. Eccl. Song Lam. Lam. Lam. Eccl. Dan. Dan. Esth. Lam. Esth Esth. Dan. Esth. Ezr.-Ne. Ezr.-Ne. Ezr.-Ne. Dan. Chr. Chr. Chr. Ezr.-Ne. The first of these arrangements is that of the Madrid codex of a.d. 1280, of five codices of the British Museum, namely Harley 1528, Add. 1525, Or. 2212, Or. 2375, Or. 4227, and of the Babylonian codex Berlin Or. Qu. 680. This order is the least logical and, therefore, prob- ably the most primitive. The Babylonian Talmud, our earliest witness on the subject, declares it to be the correct arrangement (Baba Bathra 14ft). The second arrangement is found in one codex of the British Museum, T ESTHER Add. 15252. It differs from the first merely in the inversion of the order of Ec. and Song. Ec. is placed last, possibly, because it is regarded as a product of Solomon's old age. The third arrangement is that of the Paris Codex (a.d. 1286) and British Museum Or. 2091. It differs from the second in the transposi- tion of Dan. and Est. This brings together the four little books, Song, Ec, Lam., Est., and is therefore a step in the direction of the formation of the sub-collection of the Five Meghilloth or "Rolls." The fourth arrangement is found in the codex Arundel Orient. 16. It differs from the third only in the transposition of Ch. from the end to the beginning of the Hagiographa. 5 6 7 8 Psal. Chr. Chr. Psal. Job Psal. Psal. Prov. Prov. Job Prov. Job Ruth Prov. Job Song Song Ruth Dan. Ruth Eccl. Song Ruth Lam. Lam. Eccl. Song Eccl. Esth. Lam. Lam. Esth. Dan. Esth. Eccl. Dan. Ezr.-Ne. Dan. Esth. Ezr.-Ne. Chr. Ezr.-Ne. Ezr.-Ne. Chr. The fifth arrangement occurs in the codex British Museum Or. 2201 (a.d. 1246). It is derived from the third by the transposition of Ruth to a position before Song of Songs. Here for the first time the five little books, Ru., Song, Ec, Lam., Est., are grouped in the sub-collection of the Five M'ghilloth. There is no trace of this grouping in the Talmud or Midrashim, nor is the name Five M'ghittoth known. It arose dur- ing the Middle Ages in consequence of the liturgical use of these books in the service of the Synagogue. The sixth arrangement is that of the St. Petersburg Babylonian codex of a.d. 1207, British Museum codices, Harley 5710-11, Add. 15251, most Spanish codd., and most codd. with Massoretic apparatus. It differs from the fifth in the transposition of Ch. from the end of the Hagiographa to the beginning. The Massoretic treatise lAdhath D'bhdrim (a.d. 1207) declares this to be the orthodox Palestinian ar- rangement, and that which places Ch. at the end to be an innovation of "the men of Shinar" (cf. Strack, ZLT. xxxvi. 1875, p. 605). This is a mistake. Ch. was not taken into the canon early, because it was not needed alongside of Samuel and Kings; and when it was added, it was appended to the end of the collection. The transposition to the begin- PLACE IN THE GREEK VERSION 3 ning is a late alteration due to the fact that most of the history of Ch. belongs chronologically before the rest of the KHhubhim. The seventh arrangement is that of the codex British Museum Or. 2626-28. It is derived from the sixth by the transposition of Jb. and Pr., the idea apparently being to place the writings of Solomon imme- diately after the writings of David. The eighth arrangement is that of most German and French codd. and of all the printed editions, except the first three and the Bomberg quarto editions of 1521 and 1525, where the Five Meghilloth follow the Pentateuch. This order is derived from the fifth by the transposition of Jb. and Pr., Ru. and Song, Ec. and La. In this way the Five Meghilldth come to stand in the order in which they are read on the five great holy days of the year. Song is read at Passover in the first month, Ru. at Pentecost in the third month, La. on the anniversary of the de- struction of the Temple in the fifth month, Ec. at the feast of Tabernacles in the seventh month, and Est. at the feast of Purim in the twelfth month. This arrangement is the latest of all, since this liturgical use of the Rolls did not grow up until the Middle Ages. In the official synagogue-rolls the Book of Est. is frequently found immediately after the Law, less often with the other Meghill6th, and rarely with the Meghilloth and Haftdroth, or lessons from the Prophets. This arrangement is due to the desire to have these books in a convenient form for liturgical use, and is evidently the latest of all the groupings. The varying arrangements of the Meghilloth in the synagogue-rolls correspond to the arrangements in the Hagiographa given above. Orders 5 and 6 are represented by the codd. British Museum, Harley 5773 and Harley 15283. Order 7 is represented by Add. 15282; order 8, by Add. 9400, Add. 9403, Add. 19776, the printed editions of Soncino 1488, Naples 1491-3, Brescia 1492-4, and the Bomberg quarto editions of 1521 and 1525. The peculiar order, Est., Song, Ru., La., Ec, found in Add. 9404, Harley 5706 and Orient. 2786, but not found in any canons of the Hagiographa, has evidently arisen from the later addition of the remaining four Meghill6th to a roll which originally contained only the Pentateuch and Esther (see Ginsburg, Introduction, pp. 1-8; Ryle, Canon, p. 280). § 2. PLACE IN THE GREEK VERSION. In Greek codd. and lists given by the Fathers, the books of the Hagiographa are scattered in various positions among the Former and Latter Prophets. Ru. always follows Ju. La. is appended to Je. and Dn. to the Major Prophets. The five poetical books, JbM Ps., Pr., Ec. and Song, in varying orders, usually stand 4 ESTHER together. The Pentateuch, Prophetical Histories, Ch., £z. and Ne. always stand first, except in the eccentric lists of Epiphanius (Hcer. i. i5; De Mens. 4; ib. 23), which give his own theories rather than the established order; accordingly, we may dismiss these books from further consideration. The remaining books of the OT. are grouped in the following ways: Poetical Minor Pr. Major Pr. Esther 2 Poetical Major Pr. Minor Pr. Esther 3 Poetical Esther Minor Pr. Major Pr. 4 Esther Poetical Minor Pr. Major Pr. 5 Esther Poetical Major Pr. Minor Pr. Minor Pr. Major Pr. Esther Poetical 7 Esther Minor Pr. Major Pr. Poetical Esther Major Pr. Minor Pr. Poetical The first of these is the order given by Origen (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25), Athanasius (Ep. Fest. 39, in Migne, Patr. Grcec. xxvi. 1437), the anonymous Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, Epiphanius (/. c), John of Damascus (De Fide Orthodox, iv. 17), Ebedjesu (Catal. Libr. Eccl. in Assemani, Bibl. Orient, iii. 5/.), the list in the codices Barocc. 206, Brit. Mus. Add. 17469, Coisl. 120; Hilary (Proleg. in Libr. Psalm.), and the list in Codex Claromontanus. This order is most widely attested, and from it the other orders can be explained most readily; it is, therefore, probably the original arrangement of the Sep- tuagint. The position of Est. at the end of the list is due to the fact that this book was written after the Alexandrian canon was practically completed, so that it had to be added as an appendix. The second arrangement is found in Nicephorus (Stichometria) and Cassiodorus (De Inst. Div. Lit. 14). It differs from the first only in the inversion of the Minor and the Major Prophets, possibly through the influence of the Hebrew order. The third arrangement is that of Codex Vaticanus (B). It is obtained from the first by placing Est. before the Minor and the Major Prophets. The aim of this transposition is doubtless to bring the Prophets imme- diately before the Gospels. The fourth arrangement is found in Codex Basiliano-V aticanus (N), Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. 35), a synopsis given by Lagarde (Sep- ' tuagintastudien, ii. 60/.), Pseudo-Athanasius (Syn. Scr. Sacr. in Migne, Patr. GrcBc. xxviii. 283^.), the Canons of Laodicea (lx), the Apostolic TIBERIAN MANUSCRIPTS 5 Canons (lxxxiv), Augustine (De Doctr. Christ, ii. 13), Canons of Car- thage (xlvii-xxxix). This order differs from the preceding in placing Est. before the Poetical Books. This has the advantage of bringing the Prophets immediately before the Gospels and also of associating Est. with the other historical books. The fifth arrangement appears in a list discovered by Mommsen (cf. Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, ii. 143 /., Sanday, Stadia Biblica, iii. 222/.; Preuschen, Analecta, 138). It is the order followed by Jerome in the Vulgate, from which it has passed into all the modern versions. It is derived from 2 by the transposition of Est. to a position after the Historical Books, and it differs from 4 only in the different order of the Major and the Minor Prophets. The sixth arrangement is that of Codex Alexandrinus (A). It is apparently derived from 1 by the transposition of the Poetical Books to the end. What considerations led to this change it is impossible to say. The seventh arrangement appears in Junilius (De Instit. Reg. Div. Legis, i. 3 ff.). It is derived from 3 by the transposition of the Poetical Books to the end of the list. The eighth arrangement is that of Codex Sinaiticus (*), Ruffinus (Comm. in Symb. 36), Isiodorus (De Ord. Libr. Sac. Scr.), and the Liber Sacramentorum (Bobbio, 6th or 7th cent.). It differs from 7 only in the transposition of the Major and the Minor Prophets. None of these orders of (8 can claim to be more primitive than the orders in if, all of which preserve the original threefold canon. The different arrangements in (& have arisen from the effort to group the books either chronologically or logically, and are all secondary. (See Swete, Introduction, pp. igyff-) II. THE TEXT OF ESTHER. a. DESCENDANTS OF THE TIBERIAN MASSORETIC TEXT. § 3. MANUSCRIPTS WITH TIBERIAN VOCALIZATION. Manuscripts of the Book of Esther are more numerous than of any other portion of the Old Testament. It is found in all com- plete private Bible codices; also appended to the Law in most of the sacred, or synagogue, rolls, and, together with the other four Meghilloth, in numerous liturgical scrolls. So high is the esteem which this book enjoys among the Jews that every family is anxious to own it in the manuscript form prescribed by the Talmud for 6 ESTHER reading at Purim, and this has led to the production of an immense number of separate Esther rolls that are often masterpieces of the writer's and illuminator's arts, and that are enclosed in gold and silver cases of exquisite workmanship (see JE. viii. pp. 429 jf.). No extant MS. of this book is earlier than the eleventh century of the Christian era. The oldest is the St. Petersburg Codex B 19 a, written in a.d. 1009. Enumerations and descriptions of manuscripts containing Est. arc given by Le Long, Bibl. Sacra (1723); Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. (1721 /.); Kennicott, Dissertatio (1780; ed. Bruns, 1783); De Rossi, Apparatus (1716); Manuscripti (1803); Libri Stampati (1812); Assemani, Bibl. Vaticanus Catalogus, I. i. (1756); Uri, Bibl. Bodleianoz Catalogus, i. (1787); Catalogue des manuscrits hebreux, Paris (1866); Kraft and Deutsch, Die handschriftlichen hebrdischenWcrke . . . zuWien (1847); Steinschneider, Hebr. Handschriften in Berlin (1878, 1897); Hebr. Handschriften in Munchen (1895); Harkavy and Strack, Catalog der Hebr. Bibelhandschriften . . . zu St. Petersburg (1875); Schiller- Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebr. MSS. Cambridge (1876); Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebr. MSS. in tlie Bodleian Library (1886); Deren- hourg, Catalogue des manuscrits judaiques entres au British Museum de 1867-1890, Rev. des Etudes Juives, 1891. Ginsburg, Introduction, 1897. For additional catalogues see Strack, Prolegoriuzna Critica, pp. 29-33, 110-121; Einleitung in das A. T.'3, p. 182. All these mss. exhibit the Tiberian or infralinear system of vocal- ization and accentuation that is found in our ordinary printed editions. This was introduced about 650 a.d. by the Massorites, or custodians of oral textual tradition, who had their headquarters at Tiberias in Palestine. Mss. of this recension are practically identical with one another. They have the same division of words and sentences. The Massora at the end of Est. says that there are 167 verses and that the middle verse is 57. With this all the mss. agree. They agree also in dividing the text into 5 sedharim or triennial pericopes and into 15 smaller sections. In regard to the length of the space between the sections, which indicates whether they are open or closed, there is strict uniformity. In all mss. the first word of i6 has an abnormally large initial letter. In all the names of the ten sons of Haman (910) are written in a vertical line on the right margin of the page, or the column, while the conjunc- TIBERIAN MANUSCRIPTS 7 tions and demonstrative particles that precede each name form another line on the left margin. The name of the first son, Par- shandatha, is uniformly written with th smaller than the other letters. Parmashta (o9) is written with both sh and / small. Wayzatha (9*) has a large w and a small z. The first word of 9" is always written with a large initial /. The few variants that exist in these mss. have been laboriously collated by Jedidiah Solomon Norzi in his commentary on the Bible entitled Goder Per eg (completed in 1626, first printed in the Bible of Raphael Hayyim Basila under the title Minhath Shay, Mantua, 1742-4; again in the Warsaw Rabbinic Bible; separate edition, Vienna, 1813); also by J. H. Michaelis, Biblia Hebraica, Halle, 1720; by Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (1776); and by De Rossi, V arice lectiones Veteris Testamenti (1884-88). The number of variants that these elabo- rate studies have yielded is surprisingly small. As the result of a collation of many hundreds of mss., Kennicott and De Rossi to- gether record only 29 variants in the consonantal text of Est., and these all of a trivial character. They are as follows: i1, two mss. omit "this is Ahasuerus"; 2U, one MS. reads "in the court" instead of "before the court"; several mss. read "to her" in- stead of "of her"; 3s, six MSS. after "then was Haman full of wrath" add "against Mordecai"; 416, fifty-seven mss. omit "and" before "neither eat"; seventy-two MSS. add "and" before "I also"; 417, one MS. omits "according to"; 54, six MSS. omit "this day"; 511, three MSS. add "all" before "the princes"; 66, one MS. reads" to Haman" instead of "to him;" 611, three mss. after "caused him to ride" add "on a horse"; 82, four MSS. after "his ring" add "from off his hand"; 85, one MS. reads "and Esther said" instead of "and she said"; one hundred and fifteen mss. add "all" before "the Jews"; 8fl, two MSS. have the verb "shall come" in the feminine instead of the masculine; 89, seven MSS. before "an hundred twenty and seven" add "unto"; 8n, some MSS. omit "and" before "to slay"; g\ some mss. read "no man could stand unto their faces," instead of "no man could stand in their faces"; 912, fifty-four mss. omit "and" (RV. "now") before "what is thy petition"? 914, three mss. after "and they hanged Haman's ten sons" add "upon the gallows"; o16, fifteen mss add "all" after "in"; 918, three mss. omit the entire verse; one MS. reads the finite verb instead of the infinitive in "and made"; 920, two mss. before "these things" add "all"; 922, three mss. read "in" instead of "as"; 9", twenty-nine mss. read the finite 8 ESTHER verb instead of the infinitive "undertook"; nineteen mss. read "upon them" instead of "unto them"; o24, four mss. omit "all" before "the Jews"; 927, many MSS. read the finite verb instead of the infinitive "took." A number of these variants are found also in &, 3, and dk which shows that they are survivals of ancient textual differences. Six late codd., namely, Cod. Vat. Urbin. i, fol. 869; Cod. Am- brosian. B. 35; Cod. Pii. VI.; Codd. De Rossi 7, 42, 737, append to the Book of Est. an Aramaic addition containing the dream and the prayers of Esther and Mordecai. This was published by As- semani, Bibl. Vaticance Catalogus (1756), pp. AS2ff-\ Dv De Rossi, Specimen variarum lectionum, sacri textus et Chaldaica Esteris additamenta cum Latine versione ac notis (1782); also by Jellinek, Beth ham-Midrash (1873), v. pp. 1-81; Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice (1873), PP- 362—365; Merx, Chrestomathia Targumica, pp. 154^. De Rossi attached great importance to these codd. as evidence that the additions of the Greek version were derived from an ancient Aramaic original, but it is now generally believed that these Aramaic additions are borrowed from the Hebrew trans- lation of Josephus made by Joseph ben Goryon (Josephus Gorio- nides, or Yosippon) in the tenth century. They have, therefore, no text-critical value (see Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge der Juden, p. 121; Fritzsche, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, i. 70; Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-pald- stinischen Aramdisch, p. 30; Ryssel, Zusatze zum Buche Esther, in Kautzsch's Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des A. T., p. 195; Bissell, The Apocrypha of the O. T., 1880, p. 202; Fuller in Wace's Apocrypha, p. 364). Three mss. contain acrostics of the divine name YHWH, formed by writing the initial or final letters of consecutive words larger than the other letters. In i20 these are the initial letters of "it, all the wives shall give," read from left to right. In 54 they are the initial letters of "let the King come and Haman to-day," read from right to left. In 513 they are the final letters of "this avail- eth me nothing," read from left to right; and in j7 they are the final letters of "that there was evil determined against him," read from right to left. These are mere rabbinic conceits devised to discover the name of God in the book. They have no text-critical value. TIBERIAN MANUSCRIPTS 9 Variants in vocalization and accentuation are more numerous, but are of the most trivial character and do not affect the sense of a single passage. They are collected in the text-critical works named above (except Kennicott and De Rossi), and in the Masso- retico-critical editions of Baer (1886) and Ginsburg (1894). There is seldom any doubt as to the correct Massoretic text. The rival editions of Baer and Ginsburg present only a few trifling differences of punctuation. The extraordinary similarity of all the mss. of the Tiberian family shows that they are descended from a single prototype. Elias Levita, Massoreth Ham-Massoreth (ed. Ginsburg, p. 114), quotes a passage from Maimonides to the effect that "the recension of our manuscripts is according to the well-known codex in Egypt, which contains the twenty-four sacred books, which had formerly been in Jerusalem for many years in order that other codices might be corrected by it; and that both he and all others followed it be- cause Ben Asher corrected it and minutely elaborated it for many years and revised it many times, as it has been transmitted to us." To this Levita appends the remark: "The Occidentals in every land follow Ben Asher, but the Orientals follow the recension of Ben Naphtali." (Cf. Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 247.) Ben Asher flourished in the tenth century of our era, and was the last great representative of the Tiberian school of Massorites. He prepared a standard codex of the Old Testament in which the Palestinian or Occidental textual tradition received its final form. This codex has perished, but direct copies from it are preserved in the synagogues of Aleppo and Cairo. The statements of Maimonides and Levita, that all Occidental mss. — that is, all mss. of the common Tiberian type — are descendants of the Codex Ben Asher, is to be taken with some reserve, since they do not uniformly exhibit the readings which the official lists ascribe to Ben Asher; nevertheless, as a rule, they follow this text, and there can be no doubt that a systematic effort was made by the Occidental Jews to conform their codices to this standard. Back of Ben Asher must have stood another standard codex of the seventh century in which the Tiberian Massorites first em- bodied their oral tradition as to the correct pronunciation of the IO ESTHER Old Testament. The trifling differences from Ben Asher which Occidental (Tiberian) mss. contain, are corruptions that came into the text during the period that intervened between the standard codex of the seventh century and the Codex Ben Asher of the tenth century. § 4. THE PRINTED EDITIONS. All printed editions of the Book of Esther are based upon mss. with the Tiberian system of vocalization. The earlier editions rest upon a direct collation of mss. and therefore have text-critical interest. The first edition of Est. is in the editio princeps of the Hagiographa, Naples, 1486-87, part iii. The editor was a certain Samuel of Rome. The second edition is the editio princeps of the entire Bible, Soncino, 1488. It bears the name of R. Joshua ben Israel Nathan of Soncino and of Abraham ben Hayyim de Tintori of Bologna. It is based upon German and Franco-German codd., and, apart from errors, contains a number of interesting variants from the official Massoretic text. The third edition is the complete Bible, Naples, 1491-93. This edition is more accurate than either of its predecessors. It seeks to conform closely to the Massora, and therefore its variants are of exceptional importance. The fourth edition is the Pentateuch with the five Meghill6th and the Haphtdroth, or lessons from the Prophets, Brescia, 1492. It is based upon the Soncino edition of 1488, but is carefully corrected from German and Franco-German codd. The phenomenal let- ters, i.e., those larger or smaller than the ordinary, are ignored in this edition. The fifth edition is the Complutensian Polyglot, published under the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, at Alcala (Complutum) in Spain, 1 5 14-17. Est. is the fifth book in the third volume. The Hebrew text, with vowels, but without accents, occupies the outer column. The middle column contains the Latin version of Jerome, and the inner column contains the Greek version. Rever- ence for the Vulgate lias led the editors to arrange the Heb. folios PRINTED EDITIONS II so as to read from left to right, to ignore the Massoretic division into pericopes and sections, and to adopt the Christian division of the text into chapters. According to Ginsburg {Introduction, p. 918), the Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot is based upon the Spanish MS., Madrid University Library No. 1, with modifications derived from the Naples edition of 1491-93. The absence of accents is a serious defect in this edition, and the vowel points are not accurately printed. The sixth edition is the Rabbinic Bible, edited by Felix Pratensis and issued from the Bomberg press in Venice in 15 16-17, 4 v°ls- fol. The fourth volume contains Est. with the First Targum and the commentary of RaShI, and in an appendix, the Second Targum to Est. In this edition the Massoretic divisions of the text are carefully observed, but the distinction between open and closed sections is not preserved. The Christian division into chapters is indicated by Hebrew numeral letters placed in the margin. The Qere, or Massoretic variants, and numerous other variants are also given in the margin. This edition is based on a new collation, and therefore is of considerable text-critical importance. The seventh independent edition is the great Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, and published by Bomberg, Venice, 1524-25, 4 vols. fol. Esther, with the other Meghilloth,is found among the Hagiographa in the fourth volume. The Hebrew text and Targum occupy the middle of the page, and on either side are the commentaries of RaShI and Ibn Ezra. The textual annotations of the Massora Magna occupy the upper and lower margins, and those of the Massora Parva the space between the middle columns. This edition is based upon a careful colla- tion of mss., and presents for the first time an accurate reproduc- tion of the standard text of the Tiberian school. The peculiarities of the best codices are faithfully reproduced with the Massoretic notes which guard them from alteration. The Massoretic sec- tional divisions are accurately followed, but no distinction is made between the open and the closed sections. The division into chapters is not introduced into the text, but in the preface the editor gives a list of the Christian chapters with their opening words in Hebrew. So well did Jacob ben Hayyim do his work that this 12 ESTHER edition has become the textus receptus of the Hebrew Bible down to the present day. All later printed editions are based upon this, either alone, or in combination with the earlier editions. None of these later editions, accordingly, have independent text-critical value. Arias Montanus in his Hebrew Bible with interlinear Latin translation, Antwerp, Plantin, 1571, one vol. fol., first divided the Hebrew text into chapters, and inserted the Hebrew numeral letters in the text. He also added the Arabic verse numbers in the margin. From this edition and from the polyglots the practice of inserting chapter and verse numbers spread to all the later edi- tions. Athias in his standard edition (1659-61) went so far as to invent enumerations in Massoretic style of the number of chapters and inserted these among the genuine Massoretic summaries at the ends of the books. From him these notes have been copied by Jablonski, Van der Hooght, and all the ordinary editions. The Massoretic o-critical editions of Baer (Quinque Volumina, Leipzig, 1886), and of Ginsburg (London, 1894), are revisions of the standard text of Jacob ben Hayyim, 1524-25, designed to con- form it more closely to the teachings of the Massora. They differ from Jacob ben Hayyim and from one another only in trivial matters of accentuation and vocalization, and they represent sub- stantially the standard codex of Ben Asher of the tenth century. The edition of Kittel (Leipzig, 1906) reproduces the text of Jacob ben Hayyim and gives in footnotes the more important variants of the mss. and versions. No effort is made to emend the text, but only to give the materials on which an emendation may be based. § 5. THE MASSORA. The Massora, or 'Tradition,' is a sort of text-critical com- mentary written in the margin of most of the codices. It contains observations and discussions of the Tiberian scribes during the period from the second to the tenth century of our era. It counts the number of sections, sentences and words in books. It notes their middle sentences and middle words. It enumerates passages in which unusual forms occur. It calls attention to abnormal THE MASSORA 13 letters, spelling, vocalization, or accentuation, and warns the scribe against changing these. Words that it regards as incorrect it marks with a small circle, and inserts in the margin the Q're, or supposedly correct reading, the vowels of which are placed under the Kethibh, or form in the text. Similar in character are the S'bhirin, or 'opinions,' that suggest an alternate reading to the one in the text. Variant readings of mss. and of other rabbinical schools are also recorded. The Massora has been the means by which the extraordinary uniformity that now exists in the mss. has been secured, and its authority must be final in deciding between variant readings of the Tiberian recension. The Massora is printed in connection with the Bible text, as in the mss., in the great Rabbinic Bible of Jacob ben Hayyim (Venice, 1524- 25), and in Buxtorf's Rabbinic Bible (Basel, 1618-19). There are also a large number of treatises which contain the Massora classified in various systematic ways either topical or alphabetic. The most im- portant of these are the following: — from the tenth century, Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, Diqduqe hat-Te'amim (ed. Baer and Strack, Leipzig, 1879); from an anonymous author of the same century, Okhla we- Okhla (ed. Frensdorff, Hannover, 1864); Moses the Punctuator, Darke han-Niqqud wehan-N eginoth (ed. Frensdorff, Hannover, 1847); Jeku- thiel the Punctuator, lEn haq-Qore (ed. Heidenheim in Me'or 'Enayim, Rodelheim, 181 2-21, and in Seder Yeme hap-Purim, Rodelheim, 1826); Elias Levita, Sefer Massoreth ham-Massoreth, Venice, 1536 (German transl. with notes by Semler, Halle, 1772; text, English transl. and notes by Ginsburg, London, 1867); Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, Hannover, 1876; Ginsburg, The Massorah compiled from manuscripts, lexically and alphabetically arranged (London, 1880-85, 3 vols. fol.). § 6. CITATIONS IN JEWISH COMMENTARIES. Besides these distinctively textual Massoretic treatises, there are numerous midrashim and later Jewish commentaries on the Book of Esther. All are based on the Tiberian text, and all contain more or less Massoretic material; they are of some value, therefore, in determining the true Tiberian readings. Their value is slight, however, and the additions of the midrashim have no text-critical importance. It seems better, therefore, to discuss these com- mentaries under the head of the history of interpretation where they play a much more important part (see §34). 14 ESTHER b. OTHER DESCENDANTS OF THE TEXT OF THE SOPHERIM. § 7. MSS. WITH BABYLONIAN VOCALIZATION. Back of the pointed text of the seventh century lies the unpointed consonantal text that was established in the second century of the Christian era. The main witness to this is the Palestinian Masso- retic recension whose various descendants we have just considered. Besides this there are several other recensions that must be taken into consideration in the effort to restore the original form of the consonantal text. Chief among these are mss. with the Baby- lonian, or supralinear, system of punctuation. While the Pales- tinian scribes at Tiberias were elaborating and fixing in writing their tradition concerning the correct pronunciation of the Script- ures, the Babylonian scribes at Nehardea and Sura were engaged in the same occupation. Their tradition differed somewhat from that of the Palestinians, as numerous early statements prove. The Massora also records instances in which their readings differed from those of Tiberias (cf. Strack, ZLT. 1875, p. 622/.). Their labours culminated in the tenth century in the standard codex of Ben Naphtali, which, according to the statement of Maimonides quoted above, was regarded as authoritative by the Babylonian Jews in the same way in which Ben Asher was regarded as au- thoritative by the Palestinian Jews. This codex has perished, and no immediate descendants of it are known; but in the Massora accompanying a number of Palestinian codices, lists are given of the differences between Ben Naphtali and Ben Asher. These differences are extremely trivial, and in only three cases do they affect the consonantal text of the OT. In a ms. of the Pentateuch (Codex De Rossi 12) the statement is found that the accompanying Targum was copied from a MS. brought from Babylonia and " pointed above with the pointing of Asshur." In the Mahzor Vitry (Hurwitz, p. 462) a Babylonian scribe says, "the Tiberian punctuation is not like ours, neither is it like that of the land of Israel." Cemah ben Hayyim Gaon speaks of differences between the Babylonian punctuation in regard to the full or defective writing of the vowels, the open and closed sections, the verse-divisions, and the Massora. Sa'adia in his commentary BABYLONIAN MANUSCRIPTS 1 5 on the Book Yecira says that the Tiberians have 42 peculiarities in their treatment of the gutturals, the Babylonians only 17. A certain Isaac ben Eleazar, who lived probably in the twelfth or in the thirteenth century, states that by the Babylonians Waw before a letter* with simple Shewa was pointed just as before other letters, and not with Shureq, as in the Palestinian system (see Dukes in the Litter aturblatt zu " Orient" 1846, No. 45, p. 708). This is all that was known about Babylonian mss. until the mid- dle of the last century, when codices with supralinear punctuation and other correspondences with the statements just quoted began to find their way into Europe from the Crimea and from Yemen in southern Arabia. Since that time a considerable number of these have been acquired by the Library of the British Museum and other great libraries of Europe, so that now it is possible to say something definite about the Babylonian Massoretic recension. The mss. date from the twelfth to the seventeenth century. They exhibit three slightly variant systems of punctuation, all of which differ from the Tiberian system in the signs used for the vowels and accents and in being mainly supralinear. In spite of these differ- ences, the Massoretic tradition represented by them is practically identical with that found in Palestinian mss. They do not show the differences between the " Westerns" and "Easterns" and be- tween Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali that the Palestinian Massora records, nor do they contain the peculiarities ascribed to Baby- lonian mss. by ancient authorities. It is clear, therefore, that they date from a time after the decline of the Babylonian schools of scribes, when the Palestinian text triumphed and an effort was made to bring even Babylonian codices into conformity. These codices, accordingly, are of small text-critical value. Only occa- sionally they have retained by accident a genuine Babylonian reading. One codex, however, is known which preserves more accurately the original Babylonian Massoretic tradition. This is the Berlin Codex, Or. Qu. 680. It is in an extremely fragmentary condition, but contains Est. 2l4~513. The original punctuation, which was written in a reddish brown ink, has been erased, and over it has been written the later supralinear vocalization which corresponds 1 6 ESTHER to the Palestinian system. Beneath the corrections the original readings may, however, still be recognized, and they have been collated and published by P. Kahle, Der massoretische Text des A. T. nach der U eberlieferung der babylonischen Juden (1902). This codex partly confirms the lists of Babylonian variants given elsewhere, partly corrects them, and partly gives new variants not otherwise knowrn. It is provided with a Massora that differs materially from the ordinary Palestinian Massora and corresponds with other fragments of Babylonian Massora. It is at present our best available source of information in regard to the Babylonian Massoretic recension. In the consonantal text of Esther it pre- sents no variations. In the vocalization and accentuation it con- tains only unimportant differences that do not affect the sense of a single passage. This shows that not only the consonantal text but also its traditional pronunciation was established before the Babylonian Massoretic school diverged from the Palestinian. Even if Babylonian mss. were older and more numerous, they would probably yield no important emendations of the current Palestinian text. § 8. THE PESHITTO, OR SYRIAC VERSION. Passing now from the Heb. recensions and editions to their near- est relative among the versions, we come to the Syriac translation. This was made by various unknown persons, perhaps as early as the second century of our era, and was the Bible of the Syriac- speaking Christians. For the Book of Esther five editions of the text are accessible, that of the London Polyglot (1657), of Lee (1824), of the American missionaries at Urumia (1852), of the Codex Ambrosianus (1879-83), and of the Catholic missionaries at Mosul (1887). The first two contain identical texts and are referred to by me in the commentary as #L. The Mosul Bible (J£M) is practically a reprint of the Urumia edition (i$u) with a few arbitrary alterations. As Rahlfs has shown (ZATW. 1889, pp. 161^".), for most of the books of the OT. the London Polyglot, Lee, and Codex Ambrosianus form a group representing the West- Syrian text, while Urumia and Mosul together represent the East- THE SYRIAC VERSION J7 Syrian, or Nestorian text. In the Book of Esther, however, the text of &L scarcely differs at all from that of &u. This is prob- ably not due, as Grunthal thinks {Die Syrische Uebersetzung zum Ruche Esther, 1900; cf. Barnes, Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles, 1897, Intr- § J) to correction of the mss. that underlie the Urumia edition by the London text, but to the fact that Esther was lacking from the Nestorian Canon and had to be supplied in later mss. from West-Syrian prototypes. For this book, accordingly, we have only West-Syrian readings. In a number of cases &A differs from &LU, usually in the direction of closer conformity to the Masso- retic text. Cornill (Ezechiel, p. 145/.) thinks that the text of &A has been systematically corrected from $[, but this is denied by Rahlfs and Grunthal, who hold that in these cases &A has pre- served the better readings. Such variations are relatively few, and in the main the editions of & present a homogeneous text. Variations of any importance between the editions are recorded in the critical notes of this commentary. Further details may be found in the work of Grunthal cited above. The Syriac version of Esther is an extremely faithful translation of the original. Here and there a word is added for the sake of clearness, but ordinarily ^ is followed with slavish fidelity. When possible, the translator even uses the same root that appears in Heb. Rarely, short additions are found that cannot have arisen from a mere interpretation of the text. Occasionally, as in i6, these additions bear a slight resemblance to the Greek, but usually they are independent of it, and, whatever may be the case in other books, in Est. there is not a single clear instance of influence of & by (&. The parallels adduced by Grunthal, p. 19, are incon- clusive. Accordingly, when & agrees with (8 against HI in a read- ing, this fact is of more significance than in other books of the Peshitto that have clearly been edited to conform to ($. For this commentary I have made a new collation of #L and 0U. The read- ings of &A I have taken from Grunthal, as Ceriani's reproduction of the Codex Ambrosianus was temporarily absent from the Library of Hartford Seminary for use in the preparation of the forthcoming Hartford Concordance to the Syriac OT. A detailed exhibition of the departures of the Syriac version from the Massoretic text 2 18 ESTHER in the Book of Esther may be found in Griinthal, pp. 21-55. 1 ne significant variants will be found at appropriate points in the crit- ical notes of the commentary. In general, it may be said that # represents a consonantal text closely similar to that of the Mas- soretic recension, but not identical with it. There are a number of interesting variants that are found also in (£, J, and the Targums. In some of these cases & may have preserved a better text than M. The vocalization of proper names shows a different tradition from that of M. In other cases there is not much room for difference, since, in a simple historical narrative like that of Est., only one reading of the words is usually possible. § 9. THE FIRST TARGUM. Closely akin in many respects to the Peshitto is the so-called Targum Rishon, or First Targum, a translation of the Book of Esther into the older Syriac dialect known as Biblical or Pales- tinian Aramaic. This Targum is found in the Bomberg Rab- binical Bible of Venice, 15 17, in the Basel and London Polyglots, and in Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, pp. 201-223 (a reprint of the Bomberg text). Latin translations are found in the London Polyglot and in F. Tayler, Targum prius et posterius in Esteram (1655). These editions and the citations of Alkabez in the Mandth hal-Levi, a collection of haggadic material (Venice, 1590), present a number of textual variants, which are gathered by S. Posner in the treatise entitled Das Targum Rishon zu dem biblischen Buche Esther (Breslau, 1896), pp. 71 Jf. No critical edition has yet appeared, but the text on the whole is sound. In the trans- lations in this commentary I have followed the London Polyglot. In its relation to the Heb. original this translation is a curious compound of fidelity and freedom. On the one hand, it faithfully reproduces every word of the consonantal text. On the other hand, it interlards the version with all sorts of new material. Ordinarily, these additions consist of a few words added to make the sense clear, and constitute a sort of running grammatical commentary on the book. They show a fine feeling for the Hebrew idiom and are exceedingly suggestive to the modern interpreter. Other in- THE FIRST TARGUM 19 sertions are casuistical interpretations of words and phrases, analogous to the hallachic discussions of the Talmud, by which far more is deduced from the text than a literal interpretation would warrant; e.g., in i1, from a study of the phrase "and it came to pass," it is inferred that it always introduces a narrative of dis- aster; and in i11, from the fact that the King commands to bring Vashti with a crown on her head, it is inferred that she was to wear nothing but a crown. Besides these there are other long inser- tions that are pure haggada, or imaginary spinning out of incidents to supply gaps in the canonical history. Thus in i1 there is added an account of Vashti's descent from Nebu- chadnezzar; i2, of Ahasuerus's throne; i3f-, of the King's feast and the decorations of his garden; iu, of Vashti's wickedness; i14, of the calling of the sons of Issachar to judge Vashti; i19, of the execution of Vashti; 21, of the execution of the seven viziers; 26f-, of Mordecai's bringing up of Esther and the meaning of her name; 29, of the names of Esther's handmaidens; 210, of the reason why Mordecai commanded Esther to conceal her lineage; 217, of the King's removal of the statue of Vashti from his bedroom; 220 of Esther's strict observance of the Law in the royal palace; 221, of the reason why the two eunuchs conspired against Ahasuerus, and of Mordecai's discovery of the plot because he was able to speak seventy languages; 31 f •, of God's decree concerning Haman; 32, of the reason why Mordecai refused to bow to Haman; 39, of the reason why Haman offered to pay 10,000 talents; 41, Elijah the priest's message to Mordecai; 45, the identity of Hathakh and Daniel; 412, Haman's killing of Hathakh; 51, Esther's prayer; 53, the King's promise not to rebuild the Temple; 59, Mordecai's insult to Haman; 514, the advice of Zeresh and the friends to Haman; 61, the visit of the angels to deprive the King of sleep and to make him suspicious of Haman; j6, the genealogy of Mordecai; 815, Mordecai's royal attire and triumph; 914, the manner in which Haman and his sons were hanged; 927, the reading of the Roll of Est. at the feast of Purim. These additions make the Book of Esther fully twice as long in ©l as in i&j. They are inserted by abruptly breaking off the orig- inal narrative; and when they are ended, it begins again just where it was interrupted. It is thus easy to discriminate the amplifica- tions and, for text-critical purposes, to fix one's attention upon the portions that constitute the real version. In the Antwerp Polyglot (1569) and in the Paris Polyglot (164s) 20 ESTHER a shorter recension of this Targum is found that omits all the am- plifications and gives merely a literal Aramaic translation of ^. Apart from these omissions the text of this Targum is substantially the same as that of the London Polyglot. A tendency is noticeable, however, to substitute Aramaic words for the Heb. words that the London recension has retained, and to give more accurate trans- lations of some of the words by the substitution of synonyms. The Paris Polyglot has taken this text from the Antwerp Polyglot. Whence the Antwerp Polyglot obtained it is not known. Arias Montanus, the editor, may have prepared this recension himself by elimination of those portions of the text that were not found in Heb., or he may have found this work already done for him by a predecessor. No mss. or other editions of this short form are known, and it is certain that it was not the original text of the First Targum. The major limit of age for this version is set by the fact that it makes extensive use of the haggadic material contained in the Tractate Meghilld of the Babylonian Talmud. Nearly all the amplifications noted above are found also in M'ghitta. This will appear in detail in the translations of the additions in the com- mentary, so that it is not necessary to dwell upon it here. In Meg. the amplifications are created by processes of rabbinical exegesis, in 5I1 they are regarded as settled and are incorporated into the text; S1, accordingly, must be later than Meg. The Talmud reached its final form toward the end of the sixth century, so that ©l cannot be dated earlier than the seventh century. Apparently it is known to the Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer of the eighth century (see § 34). It shows no knowledge of Yosippon (Joseph b. Goryon's Heb. translation of Josephus), which dates from the tenth century; and, therefore, is presumably earlier. It is mentioned in the Sepher ha-'Arukh, a dictionary of the Talmud by Nathan b. Jehiel of Rome (nth cent.), and also frequently by Ibn Ezra and Alkabez. In view of all the facts Posner (p. 51) is probably right In dating it about 700 a.d. This, however, is only the date of the final literary fixing of the work. It bears internal evidence of being composed out of earlier targums, although in lack of quo- tations by ancient writers the precise limits of these sources cannot THE FIRST TARGUM 21 be determined. Back of them lay the oral targum of synagogal tradition. As early as the second century B.C. Hebrew was no longer understood by the common people in Palestine, and Ara- maic versions became necessary. At first it was forbidden to write these, and the translators in the synagogues depended upon oral tradition. The popularity of Est. and the prescription that it should be read on the Feast of Purim must early have necessitated a version similar in character to the First Targum. The addi- tions in (£, £, and Jos., and the translations in J, show that the haggada that underlies this targum was already developed by the beginning of the Christian era. A targum on Est. is mentioned in the Mishna, Meg. ii. i, and repeatedly in the Gemara of the same tractate. What the relation of this targum to (Ll is, is not known. These considerations lead one to believe that the oral Aramaic translation which underlies our targum, goes back to a high antiquity, and may preserve a memory of readings that differ from the official Massoretic text. In several places the consonantal text which S1 preserves is different from that of HI, and the vocal- ization also sometimes represents a different tradition. When these variants are confirmed by (£, or by some of the other early versions, they possess some text-critical importance. Instances of this sort will be noted in the commentary. The additions of 2F1 have, of course, not the least text-critical value. They are not found in (£ or any of the other early versions, although passages similar to them do occasionally occur which show the beginning of the haggadic development. These additions belong to the latest stage of the growth of the targum tradition, and a discussion of them belongs in the history of interpretation rather than in the study of the text. § IO. THE SECOND TARGUM. The Book of Esther alone among the books of the OT., except the Law, has a second independent Aramaic translation, the so- called Targum Sheni, or Second Targum. This is the favourite targum among the Jews and is found in all the Rabbinic Bibles, in Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice (1874), pp. 223-270 (a 22 ESTHER reprint of the text of the Bomberg Bible of 151 7); in Munk, Tar gum Scheni sum Buche Est., nebst Varice Lectiones nach handschrift- lichen Quellen erlautert u. mit einer liter arhistorischen Einleitung versehen (1876); in Cassel, Aus Literatur u. Geschichte: Anhang, Zweites Tar gum turn Buche Est. im vocalisirten Urtext mit sach- lichen u. sprachlichen Erlauterungen (1885); and in David, Das Targum Scheni zum Buche Est. nach Handschriften herausgegeben (1898). The text of David is the best, and I have followed it in my translations of the targum. A German translation of ©2 is given in Cassel, Das Buck Esther (1891). This targum contains a slavishly literal version of the Heb. interspersed in the same manner as ©l with all sorts of legendary haggadic embellishments. When following the Heb. it is more faithful than 8P»; when departing from it, it runs to fantastic ex- cess. A number of its additions are verbally identical with those in (5l, others contain similar legends told in different language, and still others embody a totally divergent tradition. Some are similar in substance to the additions of (£, but show no trace of having been derived from it. The majority are found only in this targum or in later midrashes based upon it. So numerous and so long are these additions that (H2 is more than twice as large as ©>, and four times as large as the Heb. Est. The principal addi- tions are as follows: — i1, a list of the kings who have reigned or shall reign over the whole earth, the accession of Evil-Merodach and Daniel's dealings with him, the accession of Ahasuerus and his character, the location of Kush, and an account of the four kings who have reigned over as wide a territory as Ahasuerus; i2, a long addition, occupying eleven pages in David's edition, containing an acrostic on Solomon, a description of Solomon's throne, the visit of the Queen of Sheba, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Baby- lonian exile; i4, the treasures which Ahasuerus showed his guests; i5, a description of the King's feast; 1 7, a description of the drinking at the feast; i8, an account of Vashti's feast; i10, the dispute of the King and his princes concerning beautiful women; iu, the command to strip Vashti and bring her naked; i12, Vashti's answer to the King; iH, an account of the origin of the seven viziers; i16, an identification of Memukhan with Daniel and some account of his activity; i18, Memukhan's fear of Vashti's ven- geance; 21, the King's execution of the seven viziers; 25, the genealogy of Mordecai; and the reason why David spared the life of his ancestor THE SECOND TARGUM 23 Shimei; 26, further items in regard to Mordecai's travels; 27, explanations of the meaning of the names Esther and Hadassah; 28, Mordecai's effort to keep Esther from the messengers of the King; 29, Esther's refusal to eat the King's food; 217, the King's effort to ascertain Esther's origin; 221, the plan of the eunuchs to kill the King; 31, the genealogy of Haman back to Esau; 33, Mordecai's sermon to the King's servants against idolatry; 37, Haman's efforts to find a suitable day for killing the Jews; 38, Haman's argument against the Jews (occupies two pages in David's edition); 39, an explanation of the 10,000 talents that Haman offered; 311, an apostrophe to Ahasuerus; 315, the King's edict against the Jews; 41, the prayer of Mordecai; 42, the condition of the Jews after the royal edict was issued; 411, further messages that passed between Mordecai and Esther and the killing of Hathakh; 417, Esther's command and the cele- bration of a great fast by the Jews; 51, Esther's dressing of herself and prayer before going to the King; 58, the reasons why Esther invited Haman to her banquet; 514, the advice of Zercsh and Haman's friends; 6l, events in Heaven on the night after the issue of Haman's edict; 610, Haman's argument with the King against honouring Mordecai; 6U, Haman's carrying out of the King's command; 613, Zeresh's exhi- bition of the futility of trying to strive against the Jews; J9, the history of Harbonah, Mordecai's interview with Haman before hanging him, and Haman's apostrophe to the trees; 812, the contents of the dispatch sent out by Mordecai; 911, the manner of the hanging of the sons of Ha- man; 924, the reason why Esther left the bodies of Haman and his sons on the gallows; io3, the glory of Mordecai. In regard to the age of this targum opinions differ. Cassel puts it in the time of Justinian. S. Gelbhaus, Das Targum Scheni zum Buche Esther (1893), on the strength of a citation in the BT. Tract. Sopherim, assigns it to the beginning of the fourth century; but this citation is now known to be a gloss. Gelbhaus' further argument for its antiquity from coincidences with the language of the Peshitto will apply equally well to OF1. The fact is, that two Aramaic translators, both endeavouring to give a faithful repro- duction of the Heb., could not fail to use frequently the same ex- pressions. Such coincidences prove nothing in regard to age or interdependence of the versions. A surer indication is found in the relation of this targum to the First Targum. Many passages are the same in both, and in all such cases it is more likely that the fuller work is the later. ®2, accordingly, probably borrows from 3k (For evidence of this see Posner, pp, 18 ff.) Zunz, Gottesdienst- 24 ESTHER liche Vortrdge, p. 8$, and David, in his introduction to the Second Targum, assign ®2 to the seventh century, but this is inconsistent with its dependence upon 8f*. Posner finds evidences in it of the use of Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer (see § 34), and therefore dates it about 800 a.d. This is probably correct. It is first mentioned in RaShl's commentary on 1 K. io19. ©2 bears clear evidence of being a compilation of several earlier targums. Frequently it contains two versions of the same passage. Its material is loosely strung together, and fully a fourth of it, par- ticularly at the beginning, has nothing to do with the story of Es- ther. Munk, from a study of the quotations of Alkabez, comes to the conclusion that three earlier targums have been combined in this work. Back of these sources stood the same oral tradition that was used in SI1. Differences from the Massoretic text are not infrequent, and occasionally these maybe reminiscences of a variant consonantal text. Where they agree with readings in the other Vrss., they may be text-critically important. Only where W2 runs parallel to the Heb. has it any value for the text, the additions are all late midrash that never existed in any other language than Aramaic. § II. THE LATIN VERSION OF JEROME. A much more important witness than the targums for the offi- cial consonantal text is the Latin version of St. Jerome, made at Bethlehem between the years 390 and 405 a.d. The current Latin versions of this period were made from the Greek (see § 19) and were so incorrect that Jerome (Hieronymus) of Pannonia, the lead- ing scholar of the day, was commissioned by Pope Damasius to prepare a better version for the use of the Western Church. At first he attempted a revision of the Old Latin, but soon becoming convinced that this was impossible, he set about making a com- plete new translation. In his prologue to the Book of Esther, which is printed in the Polyglots and in Biblia Sacra Latina V. T. Hieronymo interprete, ed. Heyse et Tischendorf (1873), Jerome speaks thus of this particular portion of his version : — It is well known that the Book of Esther has been corrupted by the various translators; but I, bringing it forth from the archives of the He- THE VERSION OF JEROME 25 brews, have translated it more literally word for word. The common version drags this book to and fro with rough ropes, adding on occa- sion whatever things can be said and heard; just as in school exercises it is customary to take a theme and to think out what words one can use who has suffered an injury, or one who has inflicted an injury. But you, Paula and Eustochium, since you have desired to enter the libraries of the Hebrews, and since you are judges of the disputes of interpreters, take the Book of Esther in Hebrew, and compare our translation of it word for word, that you may be able to testify that I have added nothing at all; but simply, as a faithful witness, have rendered the Hebrew history into the Latin tongue just as it stands in Hebrew. We do not covet the praises of men, nor are we afraid of their abuse, but as those who seek to please God we fear not the threats of men, because God will scatter their bones who seek to please men, as the Apostle says, "Those who are of this sort cannot be servants of Christ." Moreover, at various points we have placed red letters of the alphabet as far as Teth, in order by this means to suggest to the studious reader the order of the Septuagint; for we, alongside of the Hebrew form, have preferred to indicate the order that is also found in the Septuagint. After this introduction, we should expect to find in Jerome's version of Esther as faithful a reproduction as possible of the Heb. text as it was known to him in the fourth century. He had a good knowledge of Hebrew, and was acquainted with the Jewish exe- getical tradition of his day. He had access also to the Hexapla of Origen, and he was familiar with all the other early versions. Variations from the Massoretic text, accordingly, cannot be set down to ignorance, but indicate different readings in the MS. or group of mss. that he used. The Vulgate, therefore, becomes an important aid in the correction of the Massoretic text. After Jerome's solemn protest that he has added nothing to the Heb. original, it is surprising to find in how many places his trans- lation contains words and sentences that are not found in iH. The long additions of (£, to be sure, are removed from the body of the book and placed in an appendix at the end; but other short addi- tions are scattered quite evenly throughout the entire book. These additions are as follows: — i1, super; i3, igitur, grande; i5, quod regio cultu et manu consitum erat; ifi, et pendebant ex omne parte tentoria, inserti erant, fulcie- bantur, quod mini varietate pictura decorebat; 17, qui invitati erant, 26 ESI HER cibi inferebantur, ponebatur; i8, praeponens mensis singulos de; i10, et post nimiam potationem incaluisset mero; i11, posito super caput ejus, cunctis; i12, mandaverat, contempsit; i13, semper, et illorum faciebat, consilio, majorum; i14, primi et; i18, omnes; i19, ultra; i22, ac majores; 23, et adducant eas, et tradant, et cetera ad usus necessaria; 24, ut sug- gesserant; 27, altero nomine vocabatur, nimis; 28, juxta, pulchrae; 29, et praecepit eunucho; 210, de hac re omnino; 211, et scire volens; 212, verte- batur, ungerentur; 213, ad ornatum pertinens, et ut eis placuerat com- posite; 214, atque inde, deducebatur; 215, evoluto autem tempore per ordinem; haec ei ad ornatum dedit erat enim formosa valde et incredibili pulchritudine, et amabilis; 218, pro conjunctione et nuptiis, universis; 219, et congregarentur; 221, janitores erant et in primo palatii limine, et occidere eum; 222, qui ad se rem detulerat; 223, mandatumque est historiis; 32, solus; 33, praeter ceteros; 35, quod cum audisset, experi- mento; 36, nationem; 37, in urnam, gens Judaeorum deberet interfici et exivit mensis; 38, et caeremoniis, et optime nosti; 310, quo utebatur; 311, quod tu polliceris; 315, et cunctis Judaeis qui in; 41, spargens, os- tendens, animi sui; 43, crudele; 44, quod audiens; 45, ut iret; 411, pro signo clementiae, igitur quomodo ad regem intrare potero; 413, dicens, tantum; 414, ut in tali tempore parareris; 415, haec, verba; 416, non vocata; 54, obsecro, ad me; 57, sunt istae; 59, sedentem; 510, ad se; 511, omnes; 61, sibi; 62, ad ilium locum ubi; 63, quod cum audisset; ei, ac; 64, statim, et juberet; 66, et reputans; 68, imponi super; 6U, equo praece- debat; 613, quos habebat in consilio; 74, esset tolerabile malum et gemens; 76, quod, audiens illico, ferre non sustinens; J7, de loco intravit; 78, et intrasset, reperit; 83, pessimas; 84, ex more, quo signum clementiae monstrabatur; 85, obsecro; 87, jussi, ausus est; 88, haec enim consuetudo erat; 89, et librariis, qui, praesidebant; 810, per omnes provincias, veteres litteras novis nuntiis praevenirent; 811, et in unum praeciperent congre- gari, et in universis domibus; 812, et constituta est, ultionis; 814, regis; 815, de palatio, et; 817, grandis; 91, vocari ante jam diximus, et se, vindi- care; , and 1C, and this fact shows that they are not inventions of Jerome. Unfortunately wre possess no really critical edition of Jerome's translation. The text of the Clementina is notoriously inaccurate, and in many cases of devia- tion from iH it is possible that we have to deal only with corrup- tions derived from the Old Latin or from the glosses of scribes. In the present state of knowledge of the Vulgate only those variants can be depended on which are confirmed by # and 05. Jerome's omissions of readings found in our present Massoretic text are also interesting. Such omissions are found in i1 2- 5- 8- 10. 15. 18. 19 23- 6- 8- 9- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 18- 21 "»6- 8- 15 48- M C2. 11 52- 5- 6- 7. 8. 9. 11. 13. 14 Ml. 2. 5. 9 $3. 4. 5. 7. 9. 10. 11. IS. 13. 14. 15. 16 q2. 4. 5. 6. 11. 12. 15. 16. 18. 19. 20. 24. 25. 27. 28. 30. 31 Iq2> In theSC CaSCS J SOmC" times agrees with 05, more often with IC and L. The omissions, accordingly, cannot be regarded as accidental. In other passages Jl gives a translation that does not correspond with the readings now found in the Massoretic text. Instances of this sort are as follows: — i2, civitas regni ejus exordium fuit; i4, ut ostenderet; i5, convivii in- vitavit, et nemoris; i6, aerii coloris, eburneis, depositi erant; i7, et aliis atque aliis vasis; i10, ejus; i13, ex more regio, ei aderant, leges; i18, exemplo parvipendens imperia maritorum, unde regis justa est indig- natio; i19, accipiat; i22, regni sui ut quaeque gens audire et legere poterat diversis Unguis et litter is, viros, domibus, et hoc per cunctos populos divulgari; 23, qui est propositus; 24, jussit fieri; 26, eo tempore; 27, fratris; 29, ornaret atque excoleret; 212, quae ad cultum muliebrem pertinebant, uterentur; 213, transibant; 215, muliebrem cultum, virginum; 33, fores palatii; 44, perseveraret in sententia; 36, quod esset gentis Judas; 37, quae hebraice dicitur phur, quo die et quo mense; 3 s, no vis utens; 314, summa autem epistolarum hasc fuit, ut omnes provinciae scirent; 315, flentibus; 43, oppidis ac locis, pro strato utentibus; 48, reginas; 411, et cunctae quae sub ditione ejus sunt, absque ulla cuncta- tione statim; 412, quod cum audisset Mardochaeus; 413, rursum; 416, rursumque; 416, orate, tradensque me morti et periculo; 51, ille; 52, con- tra earn; 5*, regina; 56, ei postquam vinum biberat abundanter; 5s, 28 ESTHER palatii; 514, ei; 61, illo; 62, insidias; 63, illius; 68, de sella regis est, 69, primus; 610-12, palatii; 6", eum; 7-, ei, postquam incaluerat; 74, nunc autcm hostis noster est cujus crudelitas; 7*, cujus potentiae; 77, ar- boribus consitum; 78, nemoribus consito, ejus; 8l, patruus suus; 82, suam; 84, ille, illaque, eum; 85, in occulis ejus, ei, novis epistolis veteres, eos; 86, et interfectionem; 87, affigi; 88, meo, mittebantur, illius; 89, erat autem, prout legere poterant et audire; 810, ipsaequc epistolae quae regis nomine mittebantur; 815, omnisque; 817, epulae, alterius gentis et sectae eorum religioni et caeremoniis jungerentur, cunctos; o!, cunctis Judaeis interfectio, eorum inhiabant sanguini; o3, nam; 91, quotidie et per cunctorum ora; g'°, magna, quod sibi paraverant facere; 912, qui, exercere caedem; 916, interfectis hostibus ac persecutoribus suis; 918, hi, in caede versati sunt; 919, in oppidis non muratis ac villis; 920, litteris comprehensa; 921, pro festis; 925, litteris regis irriti fierent; 926, id est sortium; 927, sustinuerunt, deinceps immutata sunt; 928, id est sortium non observentur; 929, etiam secunda epistolam ut omni studio dies ista solemnis sanciretur; 931, sortium, cum gaudio; 932, et omnia quae libri hujus qui vocatur Esther historia continentur; io1, cunctas. Some of these divergences can be explained as free paraphrases. In other cases the translation differs so completely from M that we must assume that Jerome had an independent text, or else that he vocalized differently. Apart from the passages cited above, his text is identical with the Massoretic consonantal text, and the traditional pronunciation which he follows, e.g., in proper names, is practically the same as that of 4U. Jerome does not carry us back of the codex adopted by the Jewish authorities in the second century, but for that he is one of the earliest and best witnesses. § 12. CITATIONS IN THE TALMUD. Both the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud in the Tractate Meghilla contain a sort of running commentary on the Book of Esther, in which they frequently quote its language and discuss its meaning. These discussions presuppose in most cases our pres- ent consonantal text, but the vowel points are not yet known and the rabbis frequently suggest vocalizations that differ from those of fH. The Talmud, accordingly, has some value as a witness to the pre-Tiberian text. Long additions to the story similar to those in ®' and ©2 are also found in the Talmuds. These are CITATIONS IN THE TALMUD 2Q translated in the commentary at appropriate points. They rest upon no textual authority; in fact, in most cases the process is ex- hibited by which they are elicited from the Heb. by ingenious methods of exegesis. They show that in the sixth century, when the Talmudic oral tradition first took literary form, a large part of the midrashic embellishments of Esther were already known. These are all the descendants of the text of the Sopherim, since Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, that are so helpful in other books, do not exist for Esther. By a comparison of the various forms of the text described thus far, namely, the Tiberian recension, the Babylonian recension, the Peshitto, First Targum, Second Tar- gum, Vulgate and Talmud, it is possible to reconstruct with great certainty the consonantal text from which all are descended. The extraordinary similarity of the mss. both of the Palestinian and of the Babylonian type — a similarity which extends even to the repro- duction of errors and exceptional letters — and the close agreement of all the Vrss. made since the beginning of the Christian era, prove the thesis of Lagarde to be correct, that all these recensions are de- scendants from a single prototype, the so-called text of the Sopherim (cf. Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien, 1863, pp. 1-2). At some time in the second century the exigen- cies of controversy with Christians, and the desire to have a fixed basis of discussion between the rabbis, led to the adoption by the Jewish authorities of an official standard codex of the OT. Since that time all copies have been made directly or indirectly from this codex and variant codices have been destroyed. The result is, that no ancient differences of reading have come down to us in this family, but only variants that have arisen since the standard codex was adopted. C. OTHER DESCENDANTS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT. § 13. THE GREEK VERSION. Besides the text of the Sopherim, our only other witness to the original text is the Greek translation, the so-called Septuagint. This version was made before the adoption of the standard codex of the Sopherim. Its divergences from M may represent an earlier 30 ESTHER form of the Heb. text. Esther is the only book of the Greek OT\, except the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, that has a subscription containing information about its authorship and date. Accord- ing to addition F, verse » (=Vulg. and Eng. Apoc. Ad. Est. n1), "in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dosi- theus, who said that he was a priest and Levite, and Ptolemy his son, brought the foregoing letter concerning Purim (Phrourai), which they said was genuine, and that Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, one of the people in Jerusalem, had interpreted it." This can mean nothing else, than that the Book of Esther in Greek transla- tion was brought from Jerusalem to Egypt in the fourth year of a king named Ptolemy, whose consort was Cleopatra. This is a very uncertain indication of age, inasmuch as four Ptolemies, namely Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), Ptolemy VI (Philometor), Ptolemy VII (Physcon), and Ptolemy VIII (Lathuros), were married to a Cleopatra. Most critics have supposed that Ptol- emy VI is meant, because he was a friend of the Jews and permitted them to build a temple at Leontopolis. In that case the date of the version would be 178 B.C., but, as B. Jacob has shown ("Das Buch Esther bei den LXX," ZATW. x. (1890), pp. 241/.), the only Ptolemy who was married to a Cleopatra in the fourth year of his reign was Ptolemy VIII. The book must then be assigned to 1 14 B.C. This later date is more likely on account of the failure of the son of Sirach (e. 170 B.C.) to mention the Book of Esther (so Nold., Wild., Rys.). Kuenen (Onderzoek, i. p. 542), and many others following him, have doubted the genuineness of this subscription, because it rep- resents the author as a resident of Jerusalem, while the book is written in the Egyptian dialect of Greek and seems to show knowledge of Egyptian conditions (so Jacob, /. c. pp. 280^".); but, as Nold. points out (EBi. 1405), the name Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, is Egyptian, and the author may well have been an Egyptian Jew, who, through residence in Jerusalem, became ac- quainted with Hebrew and was thus well qualified to make just such a version as we find in Est. A more serious objection to the genuine- ness of the subscription is the fact that it stands at the end of one of the long additions that seems to come from a different hand THE UNREYISEP GREER TEXT 31 from that of the original translator. If added by a later glossator, this subscription may be only an invention designed to commend Purim to the Egyptian Jews by representing it as endorsed by one of the priests at Jerusalem. It is possible, however, that the sub- scription stood originally at the end of the book, and that the in- serter of Addition F has merely removed it to the end of his ad- dition. On the whole, there is no sufficient reason for doubting the genuineness of this testimony concerning the origin of the book. It dates the version just where for other reasons one would be in- clined to put it. The Heb. Est. itself is hardly earlier than 150 B.C. and the Greek text is cited by Josephus c. 90 a.d. These, accord- ingly, are the major and the minor limits of age. The failure of Philo to quote Est. (Ryle, Philo and the Holy Scriptures, p. 32) does not necessarily show that the Greek translation was unknown to him. He may have regarded it as uncanonical. § 14. THE UNREVISED GREEK TEXT. The Greek Book of Esther has come down to us in five main recensions, and only through a comparison of these can one hope to restore the primitive form of the text. Most important is the recension represented by the uncial codices B K A N, and by the cursives 55, 108a, 249 (Holmes and Parsons). B, or Codex Vaticanus, Rome, Vatican Library, belongs to the middle of the fourth century. In 1890 it was published in photographic repro- duction by the Vatican press. Its text is accurately printed by Swete, The Old Testament in Greek2 (1896). On the whole it represents the current form of (8 in the Christian Church before the revisions of Origen, Hesychius, and Lucian had been under- taken. In the book of Esther its text is neutral in relation to these three recensions. It cannot be supposed that it represents the kolvt} e/cSocris of the third century, much less the original text of (£, still it probably comes nearer to it than any other extant ms. K, or Codex Sinaiticus, also dates from the fourth century. The forty-three leaves containing Esther and portions of Ch., Esd., and Tob. were found by Tischendorf in 1844 among waste papers at the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and are now 32 ESTHER in the Library at Leipzig. They were published in 1846 under the name Codex Frederico-Augustanus, by which name these frag- ments are cited by Field and by many German writers. Since the discovery of the rest of this MS. (now deposited at St. Peters- burg), the earlier published portion has commonly been known as Codex Sinaiticus, and is indicated by the symbol K or S. In Est. this codex agrees for the most part with B, although occasionally it shows the influence of Origen's Hexapla. Its deviations from B in the Book of Est. are given with extreme care by Lagarde, Librorum V. T. canonicornm pars prior Grace (1883), pp. 505^., and by Swete, The OT. in Greek. A, or Codex Alexandrinus, now in the British Museum, was written in the fifth century. This was used as the basis of Grabe's great edition (1707-20), and was published in facsimile (1881-3) by the Trustees of the British Museum. Its text is much more in- fluenced by the Hexapla than that of B and K, still it is far from being a mere transcription of Origen's recension. It has been revised from the Hexapla, yet it preserves many independent readings; and, on the whole, is to be regarded as a witness for the unrevised rather than the Origenic text. Its variants are given in the editions of Lagarde and Swete cited above. N, or Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus, in the Vatican Library, dates from the eighth or the ninth century. Apart from obvious mis- takes, its text in Est. presents few variations from that of B. The cursive 55 (=Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 1) is also exceedingly near to B. Its confusions of A and A and of 2 and E show that it was copied from an uncial ms. Codex 108 (=Rome, Vat. Gr. 330) exhibits two recensions of Est.; the first, known as loSa, contains a text similar to that of the uncials; the other, loSb, contains the Lucianic text. Codex 249 (=Rome, Vat. Pius I) belongs in the main to this family, but it shows many Hexaplaric readings, as is evident from its frequent agreement with the Hexaplaric ms. 936. It is full of arbitrary alterations. Closely akin to the text of the uncials, but forming a sub-group distinguished by common characteristics, are the codices 52 (=Florence, Laur. Acq. 44), 64 (=Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 2), 243 (= Venice, St. Mark's, cod. 16), 248 (=Rome, Vat. Gr. 346). THE UNREVISED GREEK TEXT $$ The Greek text of the Complutensian Polyglot (15 14) is an exact reproduction of 248, agreeing with it even when it differs from all other codices (cf. 223 51). The Aldine edition (15 18-19) a^so De~ longs to this sub-group, probably through dependence upon 243, which was accessible to the editor, Andreas Asolanus, in Venice. In the few instances where these codices agree in differing from B, they are eclectic from all the other recensions. The text of the recension of which B is the leading representa- tive differs from M chiefly in its numerous additions, which are without a parallel in other books of the LXX. There are 107 new verses not found in the Heb. Jerome in the Vulgate Lat. version translated the longer additions, but removed them from the body of the book and placed them at the end because they were not found in the Heb. This senseless arrangement is perpetuated in the English AV. and RV. In Swete's edition they are given in their proper place and are designated by the letters A, B, etc. A (=Lat. and Eng. n2-i2e) precedes i1 and narrates Mordecai's dream and the way in which he came to be promoted to honour at the court of Artaxerxes. B ( = i31-7) follows 313 with a letter of Artaxerxes. C ( = i38-i419) follows 417 and contains the prayer of Mordecai. D ( = i54-19) follows C and precedes 5. It contains the prayer of Esther. E ( = i6124) follows 712 with a letter of Artaxerxes. F ( = io4-ii5) is an epilogue describing the estab- lishment of the feast of Purim. Besides these long additions, which form compact sections at various points in the book, there are numerous short additions inserted in the midst of verses. These are eliminated in Jerome's translation, and they do not appear in our English Apocrypha. In the commentary I have translated them in full. They occur in the following passages: — i1- 6- 7- 8- »• u- 17 21- 3- 12- 18- 20- *> " -74. 7. 10. 12 A\. 2. 4. 7. 8. 10. 12. 13. 15 ;-4. 6. 8. 9 fol . 2. 3. 8. 9. 11 $5. 7. i3. 17 Qi8. i9. 2i. 22. 26 I02 (for details see the commentary). Some of these are short explanatory glosses analogous to those found in & and QT1. Others are expansions of the story that have no founda- tion in the Heb. text. No less striking than the additions are the omissions of this re- cension. There is scarcely a verse from which one or more words 3 34 ESTHER of HI are not deleted (details may be found in the critical notes- of the commentary). Apart from these additions and subtractions the text of B follows JH closely. Ordinarily one can recognize the Heb. original word for word in the translation, just as in J, 0, or 2k Only occasionally the Greek fails to correspond with iU. Sometimes this is due to reading a different Heb. word, at other times it is nothing but a textual corruption in (&. § 15. THE RECENSION OF ORIGEN. At the beginning of the third century Origen, desiring to perfect himself in exegesis, took up the study of Hebrew and soon made himself master of that language. In comparing the standard Jewish text of his day with the current Greek version, he noticed wide divergences and was convinced that the Greek text was very corrupt. In order to call attention to the errors and to aid scholars in correcting them, he prepared the huge work known as the Hex- apla, in which in six parallel columns he exhibited the Hebrew, the Hebrew in transliteration, Aquila, Symmachus, the current Greek text, and Theodotion. Differences in order from If in the current text he corrected by transposition, supposed errors he emended by the substitution of words that represented 1$ more closely. Omissions he supplied from if, or from one of the literal versions, and marked these with an asterisk to indicate that they were found in 1%, although missing in ($>. Insertions in (£ he marked with an obelus -s- to show that they were wanting in HJ. This great work was completed about 240 a.d. and was long preserved at Cassarea, where it was used by Jerome and many other scholars. Only fragments of copies of it have come down to us, and among these are no copies of Esther. The translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion for this book, accordingly, are unknown to us. Copies of Origen's revised text in the fifth column of the Hexapla have, however, survived. Pamphilus and his friend Eusebius excerpted this from the Hexapla and gave it wide currency. Codex 93 (=British Museum, Reg. i. D. 2) con- tains two recensions of Esther; one, 93a, is that of Lucian; the THE RECENSION OF ORIGEN 35 other, 93&, has the asterisks, obeli, and other critical signs which mark it as belonging to Origen. Both texts are given by J. Ussher, De GrcBca Septuaginta inter prelum versione syntagma cum libri Esther a editione Origenica et vetere Grazca altera (1655, 1695). In the Hexaplaric text the editor has taken great liberties *n the in- sertion of the critical signs. The readings of this codex are also given in Holmes and Parsons. The form in 936 corresponds closely with M, inserting under an asterisk all the passages that are omitted by (&, and obelizing the passages that are added by (8. In Codex K, a corrector of the seventh century, commonly desig- nated asN ca, appends the following note at the end of the Book of Esther (Swete, ii. 780) : — Compared with the exceedingly ancient copy corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus. At the end of the same ancient book, which begins with First Kings and stops with Esther, there is found in an open space an autograph subscription of the martyr himself that reads as follows: Revised and corrected by the Hexapla, that was cor- rected by Origen himself. Antoninus the confessor compared it. Pamphilus corrected the copy in prison, through the abundant grace and bounty of God; and, if it be not presumptuous to say so, it is not easy to find a copy like this. From this it appears that this corrector of X made use of Pam- philus' copy of Origen's revised text in the fifth column of the Hex- apla. His readings agree everywhere with those of 936 and thus confirm its Hexaplaric character. These readings are given in Lagarde's Lib. Vet. Test. Canon, and in Swete. The Hexaplaric material from 936 and Kca is collected by F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qua supersunt (1875), i. pp. 793 ff. The fame of Origen, and the authority of the martyr Pamphilus and of the bishop Eusebius, gave Origen's revision of the Septuagint great currency among scholars, although it never supplanted the com- mon text in the use of the Church. It resulted in a systematic re- editing of the ancient codices with the consequence that no mss. have come down to us that have escaped Hexaplaric influence. The problem of the restoration of the original text of (8 is thus greatly complicated. 36 ESTHER § 1 6. THE RECENSION OF HESYCHIUS. Jerome in his preface to Chronicles and preface to the Gospel {cf. Adv. Rufin. ii.) says that Hesychius was the author of a recen- sion of the Septuagint that enjoyed the same esteem in Egypt that Origen's recension enjoyed in Palestine. This Hesychius was probably a bishop who was martyred in the second half of the fourth century, and to his martyrdom was due the reputation which his text obtained. In lack of direct testimony ascribing manu- scripts to this recension, we are compelled to fall back upon indirect evidence. It is reasonable to suppose that citations of the OT. made by the Alexandrian Fathers from the fifth century onward are based upon it, and that it was also used for the translations of the Bible into Ethiopic and the various dialects of Coptic. Apply- ing these tests, a group of codices seems to be identified which represents in the main the Hesychian recension. For the Book of Esther these are the codices designated by Holmes and Parsons as 44 (=Zittau, A i.i =Lagarde's z,cf.Gen. Gr.j ff.)t 68 (=Venice, St. Mark's, Gr. 5, cf. Scrivener-Miller, i. 219), 71 (=Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1), 74 (=Florence, Laur. Acq. 700), 76 (=Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4), 106 (=Ferrara, Bib. Comm. Gr. 187), 107 (=Ferrara, Bib. Comm. Gr. 188), 120 (= Venice, St. Mark's, Gr. 4), 236 (=Rome, Vat. Gr. 331). These codices agree with one another in numerous divergences from B, especially in omitting more matter that is found in iH, and in making a number of new inser- tions (details are given in the critical notes of the commentary). They fall into a number of sub-groups; thus 44, 106, and 107 be- long together; 74 and 76; and 120, 68, and 236 (see Jacob, ZATW. 1890, pp. 244 ff.). The Coptic versions of Esther, that would presumably show an underlying Hesychian text, have never been published, so far as I am aware; and the Ethiopic version, which might also throw light on the Hesychian recension, exists only in mss. Dr. Littmann of Strassburg kindly informs me that there are two mss. in the d'Abbadie Collection at Paris, one in Oxford, nine in the British Museum, and two at Frankfurt a. M. that con- tain the Ethiopic text of Esther. None of these have been acces- THE RECENSION OF LUCIAN 37 sible to me, so that I have been compelled to ignore their textual evidence. § 17. THE RECENSION OF LUCIAN. According to the testimony of Jerome {Pre}, in Parol.; Ad Sunn, et Fret. 2) the region from Constantinople to Antioch used a re- cension of the LXX, prepared by Lucian the martyr of Nicomedia (c. 311). In the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar, Field noticed that certain readings were designated as Lucianic, and that these also occurred in one group of cursive mss. Readings of these mss. were also found in Chrysostom and Theodoret of Antioch, who presumably used the Antiochan text. This created a strong probability that the codices in question belonged to the Lucianic recension. Sim- ilar conclusions were reached independently by Lagarde, and they have commended themselves to most subsequent scholars. The codices which Field and Lagarde recognize as Lucianic for the Book of Esther are Holmes and Parsons 19 (=Rome, Chigi, R vi. 38, which Lagarde designates as h), 93a (=the first recension in London, British Museum, Reg. i. D. 2, which Lagarde designates as m), and 1086 (=the second recension in Rome, Vat. Gr. 330, which Lagarde designates as d). The text of 93a was published by Ussher in his Syntagma (1655) in connection with the Origenic text found in the same codex; also by O. F. Fritzsche, E20HP: duplicem libri textum ad optimos codd. (1848), and Libri Apocryphi V. T. Grace (187 1), pp. 30 Jf., with use of the readings of 19 and 108& as given by Holmes and Parsons. Lagarde in his Lib. V. T. Can. Greece (1883) attempts a reconstruction of the Lucianic text of the historical books, and in the case of Est. gives also the text of the uncials in parallel columns. The Lucianic text here presented is constructed from a comparison of 19, 93a, and 1086, and in the critical apparatus all the variants are recorded. For the Lucianic readings this edition has completely superseded the clumsy and often inaccurate apparatus in Holmes and Parsons. Scholtz in his commentary on Est. reproduces the two texts of Lagarde, and gives also in parallel columns the narrative of Jose- phus and a German translation of M. The text which these three late representatives of the Lucianic 38 , ESTHER family contain differs so widely from the text of the uncials in the Book of Esther that Ussher, Fritzsche, and Langen ("Die beiden griechischen Texte des Buches Esther," Tub. Theol. Quartal- schrift, i860, pp. 244^.) have been constrained to think that it is an independent translation from the Heb. A detailed comparison of the two texts, however, shows far too many correspondences to make this theory possible. This is a recension, not a version; nevertheless, it is the most widely variant recension that is found in the whole Greek OT. Although L has all the long additions to \% that are found in B, it has scarcely any of the shorter additions. In i1- 6 23 42- 15 54- 6- 8- 61- 2- » L and B contain similar brief amplifications, but all the other amplifica- tions mentioned in § 14 are lacking here. On the other hand, L has a long list of passages that are found neither in \% nor in B. These are as follows: i5 6- 9- 10- 12- 13- 16- 19- 20 21- 4- 7- 8- 9- 18 »*« 2- 3- 7- 8- 9- 12- »» a\. 3. 4. 8. 10. 12. 14 C*. 6. 9. 10. 12. 14 51. 3. 4. 8. 11 »1. 4. 5. 8. 9 g2. 3. 5. 7. 8. II q4 21. Some of these additions are of considerable length, as, for in- stance, the King's expression of regret that he has not rewarded Mordecai 63, Haman's conduct on being told to honour Mordecai 611-12, Esther's words to the King y5, the King's words to Esther 82, Esther's request of the King 87, the contents of Mordecai's letter 812. These are longer than the ordinary additions in B, apart from the six long passages, and resemble rather the amplifications in Josephus and the Targums. L also differs from B in its omissions. It leaves out not merely occasional words that seem superfluous in ij, but also whole sentences and groups of sentences particularly in the latter half of the book, e.g., i12- 22 26- 8- 1 never existed in Heb. or Aram., but that they were written for the first time in Greek. This, of course, does not preclude the idea that they may have been de- rived from traditional Jewish oral sources. (3) The interpolations contradict the Heb. text in so many par- ticulars that it is impossible to regard them as having once formed an integral part of the Book of Est. For instance, in 21619 Esther becomes queen in the seventh year of Ahasuerus, and Mordecai does not appear at court until after this event, but in A212 ( = n3 121) Mordecai holds already a high position at court in the second year of Ahasuerus. In 221-23 Mordecai has no access to the King, and is compelled to make use of the mediation of Esther to convey the news of his discovery of the plot, but in A13 ( = i22) Mordecai himself reveals the conspiracy. In 63i Mordecai receives no pay for his service, but in A16 ( = i25) he is at once richly rewarded. In 35 Haman is angry because Mordecai refuses to bow down to him, but in A17 ( = 12 6) it is because he denounced the two eunuchs. In 215-18 Esther's marriage to the King is narrated with evident satisfaction, but in C26-27 ( = i415- l6) she describes her horror at union with one who is uncircumcised and her abhorrence of the royal crown. In 54-8 Esther invites Haman twice to a banquet, but in C23 ( = i417) she declares that she has never eaten at Haman 's table. In 31 Haman is called an Agagite and his father bears a Persian name, but in El0( = i610) Haman is a Macedonian. In i19. 88 the royal edict is irrevocable, but in E17 ( = i617) the first 44 ESTHER edict sent out by Haman is revoked. In 7»° Haman is hanged, but in E12 ( = i618) he is crucified. In 920-32 the Jews alone are to keep Purim, but in E22 ( = i622) the Persians also are to keep the feast. (4) The additions do not come from the hand of the original translator of Est., but are interpolations in <& itself. Their style is freer and more diffuse than that of the other parts of the book, and their author had a much better command of Greek than the original translator. Josephus does not know two of the additions, and the Lucianic recension bears evidence that one at least has been interpolated in it. After 812 (834 in Lagarde) L inserts: "And the letter which Mordecai sent out had the following con- tents: Haman sent you letters to the effect that you should hasten to destroy quickly for me the treacherous race of the Jews: but I, Mordecai, declare to you that he who did this has been hanged be- fore the gates of Susa, and his property has been confiscated because he wished to slay you." This short addition was evidently the original draft of Mordecai 's letter in L; and when some later editor desired to insert the long letter found in the text of the uncials he was unable to place it after 812 on account of the presence of this short letter, and was obliged to insert it after 8 7. The different position of Addition E in L from that in B is witness, accordingly , that it was not an original part of L. For these reasons the long additions of the Greek must be re- garded as late interpolations that never stood in the Book of Esther or in any of its Heb. or Aram, sources. The main reason for them was the desire to supply the religious element that is so con- spicuously absent from the Hebrew edition. Thus Addition A presents Mordecai to the reader at the outset as an inspired man who seeks to act in accordance with the will of God. The prayers of Mordecai and of Esther have the same purpose, and even the second letter of the King (E) is full of references to God and praises of the Jewish religion. This Tendenz extends so far that it causes a mistranslation of Heb. passages. Thus in 52 If says, "and she obtained favour in his sight"; but <£ says, "and God changed the spirit of the King into mildness"; in 61 1% says, "the sleep of the King fled"; but (£ says, "the Lord drove away sleep ADDITIONS IN GREEK 45 from the King." The additions also serve the purpose of explain- ing difficulties in the conduct of Esther and Mordecai. Thus Mordecai's refusal to bow to Haman is due only to national pride in 31-4, but in O7 ( = i312-14) Mordecai says, ''Thou knowest all things, and thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Haman. For I should have been content with good will for the salvation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. But I did this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God; neither will I bow down unto any but to thee, who art my Lord, neither will I do it in pride." Similarly in 22 Esther is will- ing to become a concubine of the King, receives the dainties that are sent her from the royal kitchen (29), goes cheerfully to the King's couch (216), is present at the King's feast (218), and carefully hides her race and her religion (220), but in C27-29 ( = i41618) Esther prays: "Thou hast knowledge of all things; and thou know- est that I hate the glory of the wicked, and abhor the bed of the un- circumcised, and of every alien. Thou knowest my necessity; that I abhor the sign of my high estate, which is upon my head in the days wherein I shew myself. I abhor it as a menstruous rag, and I wear it not when I am in private by myself. Thy hand- maid hath not eaten at Haman's table, neither have I honoured the King's feast, nor drunk the wine of the drink offerings. Neither had thy handmaid any joy since the day that I was brought thither to this present, but in thee, O Lord, thou God of Abraham." Apart from these religious and apologetic motives, the desire to fill up gaps in the Heb. story and to give specimens of fine Greek writing, such as are found in the two letters of Artaxerxes, are suffi- cient explanation of the invention of the longer Greek additions. On the apocryphal additions to Est. reference may be made to the following literature: Fritzsche, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. T. (1851-60); Keerl, Die Apokryphen des A. T.t ein Zeugniss wider dieselben (1852), pp. 78^"., and Die Apokryphenfrage auf's Neue beleuchtet (1855), pp. 160^".; Stier, Die Apokr., Vertheidi- gung ihres althergebrachten Anschlusses an die Bibel (1853), p. 158; Dijserinck, De Apocriefe Boeken des Ouden Verbonds (1874) (not seen); Hengstenberg, Filr Beibehaltung der Apok. (1853); Langen, Die deutero- canonischen Stiicke im Buche Esther (1862); Furst, Geschichte der bibli- 46 ESTHER schen Literatur, ii. (1870), pp. 490 ff.\ Bissell, The Apoc. of the O.T. (1880); Deane, "The Septuagint Additions to the Hebrew Text," Ex- positor, Sept., 1884; Fuller, Tlie Apoc. in the Speaker's Commentary, pp. 361-402 (1888); Reuss, Gesch. der heiligen Schriften A. T., 470; Zockler, Die Apok. des A. T. (1891); Scholz, Commentar iiber das Buch Est. mit seinen Zusatzen (1892); Ball, The Ecclesiastical or Deutero- canonical Books of the 0. T. (1892); Konig, Einleitung in das A. T. mit Einschluss der Apok. (1893), p. 481; Pfortner, Die Autoritat der deutero- canonischen Bilcher des A. T. (1893) (not seen); Schiirer, Gesch. des jiid. Volkes3 (1898), iii. pp. 330/.; and PRE.3, i. p. 638; Ryssel, Zusatze z. B. Est., in Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen des A. T. (1900); Andre, Les Apocryphes de I'Ancien Testament (1903), pp. 195- 208 (the clearest and completest recent introduction to the Apocrypha). The short additions can make less claim than the long ones to be derived from a Heb. original. Few of them are found in more than one of the recensions, and this shows that they are not an integral part of (& itself. They are to be regarded as late glosses that have crept into the several recensions at a time subsequent to the insertion of the long additions. As a result of our comparison of the Greek recensions we reach the conclusion that <£ has little to offer for the emendation of the Hebrew text of Esther. None of its additions have critical value, except the short ones that are found in two or more of the recensions. When Jahn, Das Buch Esther nach der Septuaginta hergestellt (1901), attempts to reconstruct the Heb. text on the basis of <£, this can only be pronounced a most uncritical procedure. Nol- deke, EBi. 1406, remarks:. "The tendency, so common at the present day, to overestimate the importance of (8 for purposes of textual criticism is nowhere more to be deprecated than in the Book of Esther. It may be doubted whether, even in a single passage of the book, the Greek mss. enable us to emend the Hebrew text, which, as has been mentioned above, is singularly well pre- served." This judgment seems to me to be too sweeping. As will appear in detail in the commentary, there are several pas- sages where ^ gives no good sense and where (S seems to have preserved the true reading. The middle course, followed by Haupt in his " Critical Notes on Esther" in HM. ii. pp. 113-204, avoiding the extremes both of Jahn and of Noldeke in his treat- OUTLINE OF THE BOOK 47 ment of <&, seems to me to be the soundest method. It must be said, however, that, on the whole, the Massoretic text is unusually correct, and that (I has less to offer here than in the case of most of the other books of the OT. In regard to the significance of the omissions in (I it is hard to form a positive opinion. These are found in all the recensions with a uniformity that is not true of the additions. This seems to prove that the original Greek Esther was shorter than the present Hebrew text, and thus raises the question, which form is the more primitive ? In favour of <£ being original is the fact that through the centuries the Book of Esther has constantly been receiving additions, and it is quite possible that this process went on before it was admitted to the Canon. In that case the Massoretic text will have to be regarded as a midrash upon an earlier nucleus that is common to both ^ and 05. In favour of the view that $J is original, is the fact that other books of the OT., e.g., i S. Jb. Je., have been cut down in the Greek translation. I find myself unable to decide this question. Haupt, in the article just cited, omits many passages from ^ on the strength of 05, without formu- lating any theory of a shorter recension of^. I have recorded all these omissions in my notes, but in the majority of cases I have not felt sufficiently sure of them to adopt them as emendations. In general, fH unquestionably represents the purest form of the text that has come down to us, and it must be taken as the basis for all critical discussion of the book. The only attempts that have been made to construct a revised text of Est. on the basis of all the evi- dence are the works of Jahn and of Haupt cited above. The commentaries contain incidentally many textual emendations. III. HIGHER CRITICISM. § 21. OUTLINE OF THE BOOK. The book of Esther narrates the way in which Esther, a Jewish maiden, became queen of Ahasuerus, King of Persia, and saved her people from the destruction planned against them by Haman, the King's favourite; and how, in commemoration of this deliverance, 48 ESTHER the feast of Purim was instituted. It falls into six main divisions : — (i) The rejection of Vashti (i1-22); (2) The choice of Esther to be queen (21 -23) ; (3) The elevation of Haman and his plot to destroy the Jews (3H4"); (4) The fall of Haman and the deliverance of the Jews (51— 919); (5) The institution of the feast of Purim (920-32); and (6) An appendix telling something about the subsequent his- tory of Ahasuerus and Mordecai (101-3). The contents of the book in more detail are as follows: — Ahas- uerus (Heb. Ahashwerosh), King of Persia, in the third year of his reign, assembles all the dignitaries of the empire at Shushan (Susa) and feasts them for 180 days (i1-4)- During the seven days following he entertains the men of the fortress of Susa in a mag- nificent manner (58). At the same time Vashti the Queen makes a banquet for the women (9). On the seventh day Ahasuerus commands Vashti to show herself to the assembled guests; but this she refuses to do, and the King is very angry (l0-12). There- upon he takes counsel with his seven ministers of state what to do to punish this disobedience (13-15). Memukhan suggests that the example of Vashti will encourage women everywhere to rebel against their husbands; that, therefore, she ought to be deposed and a successor chosen; and that news of this decision should be disseminated in all parts of the empire and wives should be com- manded to obey their husbands (16-20). This advice pleases the King and he acts accordingly (21-22). When his wrath has subsided he misses Vashti, and his cour- tiers advise him to gather the most beautiful maidens from all the provinces in order to select from them another queen. This plan also meets with his approval (21-4). Among the girls who are brought to the palace is Esther, an orphan, who has been reared by her cousin Mordecai, a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin (5-8). She is favoured by Hegai, the chief eunuch, and keeps it secret that she is a Jewess, although Mordecai comes every day to inquire how she is (•-")• The maidens are obliged to submit to a twelve months' process of beautification and receive whatever ornaments they desire before they are brought to the King (1214)- When Esther's turn comes, she asks for nothing, yet Ahasuerus regards her as the most beautiful of all the women and chooses her in the OUTLINE OF THE BOOK 49 seventh year of his reign as queen in the place of Vashti, which event is celebrated with a feast and remission of taxes (l5-l«). Mordecai, whose kinship with Esther still remains secret, soon after this discovers a plot against the life of the King. This he reports through the Queen, and the conspirators are hanged, but he is not rewarded, only the deed is recorded in the royal annals (19-23). Afterward Ahasuerus makes a certain Haman, the Agagite, chief over all his nobles and commands every one to do obeisance to him (31-2"). This Mordecai refuses to do, and the courtiers report it to Haman (2b-5). In revenge Haman determines to de- stroy, not merely Mordecai, but the whole race of the Jews, and casts lots in the 12th year to determine a favourable day, either for laying the matter before the King, or for the execution of his plan. The lot falls, according to (8 L, for the 14th (13th) of Adar, the 1 2th month (6-7). Thereupon Haman goes to the King and asks that the Jews may be destroyed, offering to pay 10,000 talents of silver into the royal treasury if this be done. The King grants him free hand, and he issues a decree on the 13th day of the 1st month, that on the 13th day of the 12th month all the Jews throughout the empire shall be slain. Couriers are sent out with a dispatch to this effect, and it is published in Susa (8-15). The Jews are filled with consternation, and Mordecai appears before the palace-gate clothed in sackcloth and ashes (41 -3). Esther hears of this and sends other clothes in order that Mordecai may come into the palace, but he refuses to put them on. She then instructs Hathakh, one of the eunuchs, to find out what is the matter. Mordecai tells him, and charges Esther to go to the King and beg for a reversal of the decree (49). Esther at first objects on the ground that the death-penalty is visited upon any one who appears before the King without a summons; but, being urged by Mordecai, she finally consents to run the risk three days later, asking that in the meanwhile all the Jews in Susa will fast with her (l0-17). On the third day she appears before the King and is graciously re- ceived. When he offers to grant any request, she asks only that he and Haman will come to a banquet that she has prepared (51-6). At the banquet the King offers again to grant any request, but Esther asks only that he and Haman will come to another banquet 4 SO ESTHER with her on the morrow (fiS). Hainan goes out in high spirits, but when Mordecai refuses to bow to him, he hastens home and informs his family and friends that all his honours are worthless so long as this Jew is alive. They advise him to build a gallows 50 cubits high, and to ask the King the next day that Mordecai may be hanged upon it (a-14). The following night the King cannot sleep, and has the annals of the kingdom read to him. He is thus reminded that nothing has been done to reward Mordecai (61-3). At this moment Haman arrives to beg that Mordecai may be hanged, and is asked, What shall be done to the man whom the King desires to honour ? Sup- posing himself to be meant, he names a number of royal honours, and is amazed to be told to confer these upon Mordecai (4-1%0). This order he carries out and returns in despair to his home. There his family and his astrologers express their fear that this ill fortune is the beginning of his downfall (» -13). While they are talk- ing, eunuchs come to fetch Haman to the banquet with Esther (14). Here the King once more offers to give her anything that she may ask, and this time she tells him of Haman's plot and begs for her own life and the life of her people (71-6). The King goes out in wrath, and Haman falls upon Esther's couch to beg for his life. When the King returns, he is still more angered by Haman's posture, and commands to hang him on the gallows that he has built for Mordecai (7-10). Mordecai is then installed in the place of Haman (81-2). Esther goes a second time unsummoned to the King, and being favourably received, begs for a reversal of Ha- man's edict of destruction. Full power is given Mordecai, and, although he cannot countermand Haman's orders, since the laws of the Medes and Persians are unchangeable, yet he directs that on the day appointed for their destruction the Jews shall every- where defend themselves and slay their enemies (3-14). Mordecai then goes forth in royal apparel, and the Jewrs rejoice over their deliverance (13-17). When the thirteenth of Adar comes, the Jews assemble in accordance with Mordecai's directions and no one dares to oppose them. Helped by the governors of the provinces, they slay their enemies everywhere, and in Susa they kill 500 men, among whom are the ten sons of Haman (91-10). This the King IDENTITY OF AHASUERUS 51 reports to Esther and inquires if there is anything more that she would like to have done. She asks that another day be granted for slaughtering the Jew's enemies in Susa, and that the ten sons of Haman be hanged on the gallows (u-15). In the provinces 75,000 enemies of the Jews are slain on the thirteenth day and the four- teenth day is celebrated by the Jews as a festival; but in Susa the slaughter continues on the fourteenth day, and the fifteenth is kept as a holiday. This is the reason why the country Jews feast on the fourteenth, rather than the fifteenth of Adar (1619). After this Mordecai sends out letters commanding the Jews in all the provinces to celebrate both the 14th and 15th of Adar (20-22). This they undertake to do with repetition of the story of their deliverance (23-25). Thus the annual feast of Purim is instituted, and is made binding upon the Jews for all generations (26-28). Esther and Mordecai then write a second time to confirm the institution of Purim (*•-*). The story concludes with mention of a tax imposed by Ahas- uerus, and of the greatness of Mordecai, for fuller information in regard to which the reader is referred to the Book of the Chron- icles of the Kings of Media and Persia (101-3). § 2 2. IDENTITY OF AHASUERUS. For the interpretation of the book it is important to determine at the outset who is the king that is called Ahasuerus ('Ahash- werosh). On this point until recently opinions have differed widely. Every king of Media and of Persia, from Cyaxares to Artaxerxes Ochus, has been selected by some one for identification with this monarch. (1) In Est. 26 it is stated that Mordecai was carried captive with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, and from this it has been inferred that the Ahasuerus of our book was one of the kings of Media contemporary with the period of the Babylonian cap- tivity. Nickes, De Estherce libro, i. (1856), pp. 43-49, identifies him with Ahasuerus, the father of Darius the Mede, mentioned in Dn. 91, whom he regards as the same as Cyaxares, son of Phraortes, the con- temporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiachin. Similarly Ferrand, Reflexions sur la religion Chretienne, i. p. 157; Marsham, Canon Chroni- 52 ESTHER cus, p. 609; des Vignoles, Chron. sue, ii. p. 274; Herbst-Welte, Einl. in das A. T., ii. (1842), p. 253/.; Kohlreif, Chronologie liphrat katon (1732), pp. 192/"., identify him either with Cyaxares I, or with a supposed Cyaxares II, his son. A similar view is held by Erbt (Purim, p. 47). The objections to this view are, that Darius the Mede in Dn. 91 is so uncertain a person historically that no safe conclusions can be based upon the name of his supposed father, and that Cyaxares reigned over no such vast territory as is assigned to Ahasuerus in i1. Moreover, the order of the words "Persia and Media" in i14- 19 suggests that in the time of Ahasuerus Persia, and not Media, held the hegemony. (2) G. Mercator, Chronol. iii., Demonstr. Chron., p. 185; R. Walther, Hommilarium sylva, Esther, p. 2; P. Wokenius, Commentatio in librum Esther (1730); Aster, Dissertatio Philologica de Ester ce cum Ahasuero conjugio (1870), decide for Astyages; but this view has nothing in its favour, and is open to all the objections that apply to the identification with Cyaxares. (3) Ezr. 45-7- ■* names the kings of Persia in the following order: Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, from which it has been inferred that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. With this Ahasuerus, or Cambyses, the Ahasuerus of Est. is identified by Lyr., Vat., Gene- brard, and Winck. (AOF. ii. 214). It is now generally recognized, however, that the order of the kings in Ezr. 4 is not chronological. The Chronicler supposed that the narrative of 47-23 referred to the stopping of the building of the Temple, whereas really it referred to the stopping of the building of the wall. As a result, he has placed Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I between Cyrus and Darius. This passage, therefore, affords no safe basis for the identification of Ahasuerus with Cambyses. (4) RaShI, IE., Tir., Lap., identify Ahasuerus with Darius Hystaspis. RaShI remarks, " He was the king of Persia who ruled after Cyrus, at the end of the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity." In support of this view is urged its correspondence with the statement about Morde- cai's captivity in Est. 26, the extent of Darius' empire, and his invasion of India, as narrated by Megasthenes and Arrian. But the name Darius was well known to the Hebrews, and there is no reason why the author of Est. should not have used it if he had meant this king. (5) The Lucianic recension of <8> ordinarily transliterates the name of this king by Assueros, but in 920, codd. 19 and xo&b read Xerxes (93a, Artaxerxes) and in io3 all the codd. agree in reading Xerxes. According to ®2 he was the son of Darius. Eusebius {Chronicorum libri duo, ed. Schoene (1875), i. 125; ii. 105) also identifies Ahasue- rus with Xerxes. This view received a learned and elaborate defence from J. Scaliger, Thesaurus temporum Eusebii (1606), pp. ioiff.; and IDENTITY OF AHASUERUS 53 Opus de emendatione tern porum (1629), pp. 587^". He has been fol- lowed by Drus., Mai., Jun., in their commentaries, and by Pfeiffer, Dubia Vexata (1704), pp. 257 ff.\ Justi, "Versuch iiber den Konig Ahasverus im Buche Esther," in Eichhorn's Repertorium, xv. pp. 3-38; Carpzov, Introd. i. (1741), pp. 356/".; Baumgarten, Dejide libri Estherce (1839), pp. 122/.; F. M. Schultz, SK. (1853), pp. 624/. (6) The common recension of (S translates 'Ahashwerosh by Artax- erxes, and this has led to the identification of this king with each of the three monarchs who bore that name. Josephus, Ant. xi. 184^., identi- fies him with Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) ; so also Mid., Bel., Caj., Sane, Sal., Bon., Men., Cler., and most Roman Catholic commentators down to modern times. See also Petavius, Lib. xv. c. 27; Lightfoot, Com- plete Works (1822), ii. pp. 317 ff. In support of this view is urged this king's good will toward the Jews, as evidenced by his kindness to Ezra and Nehemiah. The chief difficulty with this view, as with the follow- ing identifications, is the impossible age that it gives Mordecai, if he was carried captive under Jehoiachin, as narrated in Est. 62. This difficulty is avoided by the supposition that the statement about the cap- tivity applies, not to Mordecai himself, but to one of his ancestors; but this is exegetically impossible (see com. a. I.). The Jewish Chronicle Seder 'Olam, which is older than the Talmud, solves all chronological difficulties by the curious method of identifying all four kings of Persia mentioned in the OT., namely, Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artax- erxes, as titles of one and the same person (see chap. xxx. ed. Joh. Meyer, 1699). (7) Jerome in his commentary on Ezek. 4; Bede, De vi. mundi cetat., ad A. M. 3588; Rhabanus Maurus, and a few Catholic commentators think of Artaxerxes Mnemon. (8) Serarius, Gordon, Huntley, Capellus (Chronol. S., Tab. xi., ad A. M. 3743), prefer Artaxerxes III (Ochus). The only reason for this view is the fact that in the apocryphal addition E14 (=i6H) Haman is said to have plotted to deliver the kingdom of the Persians to the Mace- donians, which implies the later days of the Persian empire. This controversy has been brought to a close by the decipher- ment of the Persian monuments, in which the name Xerxes appears in such a form as to leave no doubt that he is the king who is meant by Ahasuerus. In the Persian column of the trilingual inscriptions of this king from Persepolis, Elvend, and Van, he is called Khshayarsha; in the Babylonian equivalent, KhishVar- shu (see Bezold, Achdmenideninschriften (1882), and Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschriften (1881). 54 ESTHER In Babylonian tablets such forms occur as Akhshiyarshu, Akkashi- arshi, Akkisharshu, Akhshiyaivarshu, Akhshuwarshi, and Akhshi- ■warshu (see Bezold, in EBi. i. 94). In an Aramaic inscription the consonants Kh-sh-y- -r-sh appear. These forms are evidently the ety- mological equivalents of Heb. '-kh-sh-w-r-sh, which is the form that appears in Est. i16 221 312 810. In io1 the form is '~kh-sh-r-sh. The traditional pronunciation 'Akhashwerosh is inaccurate, and is probably due to Jewish effort to give the name a Heb. etymology. The original pronunciation may have been something like 'Akhashwarsh. Instead of iv the Persian and Bab. forms would lead us to expect y, and this is found in the Syriac spelling '-kh-sh-y-r-sh. From this Haupt, HM. ii. 119, infers that wis a corruption of y in the Heb. spelling; but, in the light of some of the Babylonian forms cited above, this cannot be regarded as certain (cf. Strassmaier, Actes VII. Cong. Orient., Sect. Sem. 18/., and Bevan, Com. on Daniel, p. 149). With the identification of Ahasuerus with Xerxes all the state- ments of the Book of Est. agree. He was a Persian king who also ruled over Media (i3- 18), his empire extended from India to Ethiopia and contained 127 satrapies (i1 89 930), it also included the islands of the Mediterranean (io1), his capital was at Susa in Elam (i2, etc.). This is all true of Xerxes, but of no other Persian monarch. The character of Ahasuerus, as portrayed in the Book of Est., also agrees well with the account of Xerxes given by Herodotus and other Greek historians (see § 27). For these reasons there is general agreement among modern scholars, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant, that by Ahasuerus the author of the Book of Est. means Xerxes. § 23. PURPOSE OF THE BOOK. The purpose of the Book of Esther is to commend the observ- ance of the feast of Purim by an account of the way in which this feast originated. The goal is reached in 93°-^ where we read: "And [she] sent letters unto all the Jews, unto 127 provinces, the kingdom of Xerxes, containing friendly and faithful words, to establish these days of Purim at their appointed time, as Mor- decai the Jew had established for them and Esther the Queen, and as they had established for themselves and for their descend- ants, the matters of the fastings and of their cry of distress. So the PURPOSE OF THE BOOK 55 command of Esther established these matters of Purim and it was committed to writing." Toward this conclusion the whole nar- rative of the book tends. Xerxes' feast serves merely to give an opportunity for Vashti's degradation. Vashti is degraded in order that Esther may be#brought to the throne. Hainan's de- cree of destruction gives Esther an opportunity to interfere on behalf of her people. In 3 7 we are told that the lot which Haman cast was called pur. For this statement no reason appears, ex- cept that the author wishes to use this word later as an explana- tion of the name Purim. After Esther has interceded success- fully for the Jews and the danger is averted, the author remarks 917 f-: "And they rested on its fourteenth day, and made it a day of banqueting and joy. Therefore the country Jews, that dwell in hamlets of the rural districts, keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar as a joy, and a banquet, and a holiday, and a sending of dainties to one another." Immediately after in 920 we read: "And Mordecai wrote the following words, and he sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of King Xerxes, those near and those far, to establish for them, that they should continue to keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and its fifteenth day in every single year, like the days on which the Jews rested from their enemies and the month that was changed for them from sorrow unto joy and from mourning unto a holiday, to keep them as days of banqueting, and joy, and of sending dainties to one another. And the Jews made customary that which they had begun to do and that which Mordecai had written unto them." Again in g26 f- we are told: "Therefore they called the days Parim, because of the name of the pur. There- fore, because of all the words of this message, and because of what they had seen in this respect, and because of what had come unto them, the Jews established and made it customary for them- selves, and for their descendants, and for all who should join themselves to them, that it might not be repealed, to continue to keep these two days in accordance with the letter that prescribed them, and in accordance with the time set for them in every single year; and that these days might be remembered, and be kept in every single generation, and every single family, and every single 56 ESTHER province, and every single city; that these days of Purim might not be repealed by the Jewish community, and that the memory of them might not cease among their descendants." Then fol- lows the concluding enactment of Esther (930-32), as quoted above. In the light of these facts it is clear that the book has one purpose from beginning to end, that is, the institution of the feast of Purim. This is so obvious that it has been recognized by nearly all inter- preters. As curiosities of exegesis it may be proper to mention a few divergent views. Advocates of an allegorical interpretation regard this book either as a prophecy, or as a symbol of sacred mysteries. Among the Jews this method has found little favour, for Purim is a cherished institution that has no basis in the Law, and they need to treat Est. as history in order to find a warrant for its observance. Still, Abraham Saba of the fifteenth century, in his unpublished commentary, and Moses Isserles of the sixteenth century, try in all earnest to carry through an allegorical interpretation. Hugo of St. Victor, in his Appendix ad Opera Mystica de spirituali Christi convivio in Migne, Pat. Lat. clxxvii. 1185-1191, understands the 180 days' feast of Ahasuerus as the period of preparation for the Gospel; and the seven days' feast that follows as the New Testament dispensation. Among Roman Catholics this kind of exegesis has lasted down to our own day. The most elaborate at- tempt of the sort is that of Didachus Celaedeiis, Comm. cum duplici tractatu de convivio Ahasueri mystico, i.e., de Eucharistia et de Esther figurata, i.e., beata Virgine (London, 1646). Even commentators that follow in the main the historical method are prone to treat Esther as a type of the Virgin Mary. Scholz's Commentar iiber das Buck Esther mit seinen Zusatzen (1892) is a remarkable recent effort to allegorize the book. On p. xxxvi he says: "The Book of Esther is a prophetic repetition and further development of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning Gog. Ahasuerus is humanity that has entered into the Messianic kingdom, in which the Messianic God lives and works, with which also he is one, but which is prone to fall, and for the most part does actually fall more or less frequently." (See also §§ 35, 36.) Against all such interpretations is the fact, that the book never sug- gests that it wishes to be taken in any other than a literal sense. It is a fundamental characteristic of genuine allegory that it is incapable of a complete literal interpretation, but this is not the case here. Est. is a plain, straightforward prose narrative, just like all the historical books of the OT., and it does not contain a single statement that cannot be understood literally. If the author had meant it to be a prophecy, he would have used the future tense, as all the prophets do, and would not have cast his message into a narrative form that was certain to be 57 misunderstood by his readers. Moreover, if this were prophecy, analogy would lead us to expect the use of poetry rather than prose. J. S. Bloch, Hellenistische Bestandtheile im biblischen Schrifttum (1877), advocates the extraordinary hypothesis that Est. was written during the Maccabaean period, and that its aim was "to justify the party that was friendly to the Greeks." This view emphasizes the absence of the name of God and of all distinctly Jewish religious colouring, also Esther's and Mordecai's friendly relations to Xerxes; but these features throw no real light upon the purpose of the book. It is hard to see how an author who was favourable to Greek heathenism could have represented Mordecai as refusing to bow down to Haman 32, or how he could have related with such evident satisfaction the slaughter of the heathen in chapter 9. § 24. INDEPENDENCE OF 920-IO3. In regard to the unity of the larger part of the Book of Esther no doubt can be felt. The outline of contents given in § 21 shows that there is a systematic and harmonious development of thought at least as far as 919, and the discussion of purpose in § 23 shows that one aim dominates the entire book. Only in regard to the section 920-io3 can doubt be felt whether it comes from the same hand as the rest of the narrative. J. D. Michaelis, Deutsche Uebersetzung des A. T. mil Anmerkungen fiir Ungelehrte, xiii. (1783), first noticed the peculiarities of this section, and concluded that they indicated that it was derived from an independent source. He has been followed by Bertheau in his commentary (1862) as far as 920-32 js concerned, by Ryssel in the second edition of the same work (1887), by Kamphausen in Bunsen's Bibelwerk (1868), and by Wildeboer, Kommentar (1898). In support of this view the following facts may be noted: — (1) In io2 the author refers to the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia for additional information in re- gard to the matters that he has just been narrating. This sug- gests that he has derived his material from the work that he cites. In 932 it is stated that "the commandment of Esther established these matters of Purim and it was committed to writing" (RV. " written in the book"). Here Pise, Jun., Grot., Raw., see an- other reference to the Chronicle, but this is doubtful; the expression 58 ESTHER probably alludes only to the letter of Esther mentioned in 9" (see com. a. I.). This Chronicle of the Kings of Media and Persia was not the royal diary mentioned in 223 61, but was probably some Jewish compilation of the traditional history of the Medo- Persian kings, like the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel that is so often cited by the Chronicler (see com. on io2). From it the author of Est. must have extracted some of the material that precedes io2, unless this reference be regarded as an invention designed to give additional authority to his book. (2) 924-25 contains an account of Haman's conspiracy that is a duplicate to chapters 3-7. Details vary in these two narratives in the manner that is usual in parallel accounts of the same events. (3) In a number of particulars 920-io3 contradicts the earlier part of the book to such a degree as to indicate that it comes from a different hand. According to 919, the Jews of the author's region kept partly the fourteenth and partly the fifteenth of Adar in memory of their escape, but in 921-23 Mordecai commands, and the Jews agree, to keep both the fourteenth and the fifteenth of the month. The editor treats Mordecai 's command as though it were only a modification of the observance of the Jews at the time of the first celebration of the feast, but 919 indicates clearly that its author regarded this observance as an established practice. The two accounts show apparently the customs of the Jews in different regions. In 924 f- Haman acts without the King's knowledge in planning the destruction of the Jews (cf. 925, "When it came before the King"); but in 38-11 the King knows the plan from the beginning and aids Haman in carrying it out. In 9" no refer- ence is made to the part that Esther played in averting the disaster. The opening words of this verse cannot be translated, "when she came before the King," but mean only, "when it came before the King"; in chapter 7, on the contrary, the whole credit of the deliverance belongs to Esther. In 925, when the King learns of Haman's plot, he says, "Let his wicked plan, which he has devised against the Jews, return upon his own head." In 7* f- a different account is given of the transaction and of the reason for the King's INDEPENDENCE OF cr°-io* 59 sentence. In g25 Haman and his sons are apparently hanged at the same time. In 710 914 Haman is executed first, and his sons are not hanged beside him until after the massacre of the 13th of Adar. In g22 the sending of gifts to the poor is prescribed as part of the observance of Purim, and in 931 fasting and crying accompany the feast; but in 917-19 these customs are not men- tioned as part of the initial observance. (4) The language of this section exhibits many points of simi- larity with that of the body of the book, as one would expect even in independent documents that belong to the same age and the same school of thought; on the other hand, a number of the most characteristic phrases of the body of the book are wanting here, and expressions are found here that do not occur in the body of the book. On the whole, the linguistic evidence is favourable to the literary independence of this section. The following words and phrases are common to both parts of the book: -on PL 3s- 13 912- * and oft.; S^M 4s g22; -pn 3* g" al.\ 32« 76 g22 al.; nbni i* 63 io2; S-vj 37 924; -]Dn Niph. 9*- 22; o 613 9"- 28- 31 io3; SSn Hiph. 613 923; 2&n 83 924f-; a 10 DV 8" g19- 22; ana i19 920- 29- 32-f-i3t.; aro i22 927+ 6t.; b with inf. introducing a command i22 921 and oft.; -iskb i15 220 932; runo i» 92°- »■ 30 and 0ft.; na^np 83- 5 g25; ^75 oft. in both; n^p oft. in both; n-ioSp in both; rroo 29 919- 22; rnStpp 919- 22; nntfp i3 922 and oft.; nu 9I6. n. 22; -,1c ^Dn 37 024; ^ 4i3 03ij -,gD Qft. in both; "Dy i«9 927- 28; -pj» 315 qm and oft.; Df i5 io3 and oft., fl{| 223 q25 and oft.; ntrj? 922. 23 gn. is- qu 43 gzu y$ 310 8l 910- u; Sap 4* 923- 27; nun 926 and oft.; bMi 92s and oft.; an 5" io3; jn 92s and oft.; D*fr io1 and oft.; nnpt' 922 and oft. The following common expressions of the body of the book are omitted in 92a-io3: — ans 217 510- l* 613; -ihn 38- m 4" 73 812; S -»en i" 4" 9"; rua 0to. 15. i6. na 313 gn. n^3 12 and oft. to 912; ntf^a 7 times in i1-^19; rn 19 t. in body; jnn 10 t.; TOH 6 t.; »n 6 t.; pen 7 t.; fnafon >xn 3 t.; "ran 8 t.; «nn 3 t.; onn 3 t.; njjao 6 t.; HO on 7 t.; »jD 313 8U; -p 21 t.; yv 7 t.; air 5 t.; r; 6 t.; by 3 t.; nx^ 9 t.; T|£ 9 t.; a^ 4 t.; npS 6 t.; fi&f 5 t.; f^P 3 t.; nSd 4 t.; nxb 8 t.; DljMp 3 t.; *u: il^/r. 14 t.; )Mj 8 t.; So: Qa/ 7 t.; jru 26 t.; did 6 t; iid 3 t.; ono 12 t.; 1|| 6 t.; H? 12 t.; ni?.;? 3 t.; "W 8 t.; pap 6 t.; mp 11 1.; an 7 t; D*n 4 t.; 33"i 4 t.; Kjfe 3 t.; IE' 13 t.; nSnc; 6 t.; TOtf 5 t.; njnr 10 t. The following expressions are found only in 920-to3: — d^jox 922; rnjN 92«- 29; nN, of a fellow-Jew^ io3; D*»K io1; np/N 93°; -rn 9*8; iv-n io»; 60 ESTHER DDfl p24; ■*£ 928; rp? 927. b; pj, 922; naD Sj; 926; nV? JSfiph. 9"-y wn np 926; Dp io1; ni?j?p io2 (in 39 g3 noN^p); njtrD io3; nnBt?p 9"; runp 9M; «iw 9"; nnis (plural) p"- 2«- ™- »• 32. a?i? p;. 'made obligatory,' Q27. 31. 32. r^n 929 I02. The use of the perfect with simple Waw, instead of the imperfect with Waw consec, is also peculiar to this part of the book {cf. 925) . In view of these facts it is difficult to think that 920io3comes from the same hand as the rest of the book. It is equally difficult to regard it as an interpolation. The purpose of the author is evi- dently to lead up to the establishment of Purim, as recorded in this section. If these verses be omitted, no adequate account of the origin of the feast is given, and the book is left without a head. The theory that best explains the facts, probably, is that the sec- tion 92o-io' is quoted by the author of Est. from the Chronicle mentioned in io2, from which also he has derived the ideas that he has worked up in an independent fashion in the rest of the book. Erbt's analysis of Est. into a Mordecai story and an Esther story (Purimsage, pp. 19 sq.) is so obviously the product of his theory in regard to the origin of Purim that it demands no de- tailed consideration at this point (see pp. 78-81). § 25. AGE OF THE BOOK. In regard to the age of Est. many opinions have been held. Josephus identifies Ahasuerus with Artaxerxes I, and assigns the book to the reign of that king. Augustine supposes that Ezra was the author; the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 15a), the men of the Great Synagogue. Clement of Alexandria conjectures on the basis of 920-32 that Mordecai was the author, and this view has been followed by many of the ancient Jewish and Christian scholars. R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Heb. Intr. to the OT., suggests that it was written by Jehoiakim b. Joshua. Conservative critics of the last generation assigned it to the reign of that particular king of Media or Persia with whom they happened to identify Ahas- uerus. Modern critics are unanimous in believing that the book is a product of the Greek period. The only dispute is, whether it belongs to the earlier or the later part of that period. Most AGE OF THE BOOK Oi recent writers incline tu the view that it dates from a time after the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the deliverance by Judas Maccabaeus in 165 B.C. For the solution of the problem the book contains the follow- ing data: — (1) It makes no claim of age or authorship for itself. The statement of 920, "Mordecai wrote these things," does not refer to the foregoing narrative, but to the !etter that follows. The "book" mentioned in o32 is not Est., but the letter that Esther has just written. (2) There is no external evidence for the existence of this book before the beginning of the Christian era. It is never cited by any pre-Christian writer. Ch., Ezr., Ne., Dn., Philo, and the apocryphal books contain no mention of it. The silence of the son of Sirach (c. 170 B.C.) is specially significant, since in Ecclus. 44-49 ne gives a long catalogue of Hebrew worthies. The absence of Est. and Dn. from this list can be explained in no other way than that the books telling about them were not yet written. The earliest evidence of the existence of Est. is the LXX version, which is first cited by Josephus {Cont. Ap. i. 8). Purim is first mentioned in 2 Mac. 1536 as "the day of Mordecai" that follows the day of Nicanor. This reference does not show that Purim was observed in the time of Judas Maccabaeus, but only that it was known to the author of 2 Mac. The earlier and better informed author of 1 Mac. 749 mentions the 13th of Adar as the day of Nicanor, without reference to its proximity to the day of Morde- cai. There is no evidence, therefore, that Purim was kept by the Palestinian Jews before the 1st cent. B.C. (3) The historical standpoint of the book indicates its origin in the Greek period. In i1 13- 14 411 88 the author speaks of the times of Xerxes as long passed. The halo of romance cast about the Persian empire also indicates that it had ceased to exist. In 38 the statement that the Jews are scattered abroad and dispersed among all peoples shows knowledge of the Diaspora of the Greek period. The conversion of multitudes to Judaism (817 927) did not occur in the Pers. period, but was a result of the proselyting zeal of Graeco-Roman times (cf. Matt. 2315). In the opinion of 62 ESTHER many critics Ahasuerus' edict of destruction (312 ! •) shows knowl- edge of Antiochus' determination in 169 B.C. to root out the Jew- ish religion. (4) The intellectual standpoint of the book also indicates its origin in the late Gr. period. There is no trace of the Messianic hope that characterized the early days of the restoration of the commonwealth. The bitter hatred of Gentiles, and the longing for their destruction that this book discloses, were first induced by Antiochus' resolve either to Hellenize or to exterminate the nation. Mordecai's refusal to bow before Haman (32) is not in accord with old Heb. usage, but shows a new spirit of independence awakened through contact with the Greeks. The prominence given to financial considerations (3 9) is also indicative of the commercialism that developed among the Jews during the Greek period. The national pride bereft of religious enthusiasm indicates that the book was not written at the time of the Maccabaean struggle, but in the period of worldliness and self-complacency that followed the attainment of national independence in 135 B.C. (5) The language of the book leads to the same conclusion. Its Heb. is as late as any in the OT., and most resembles that of Ec, Dn., Ch. Many words are not found elsewhere except in the Mishna and other rabbinical writings. Aramaic influence is conspicuous in diction and construction. The style is awkward and laboured, and shows that the author used Heb. only as a literary language. The late words of the book are as follows: — j-ox 86 95 a.\. = Syriac; rvJ»H 816 late, Mishnic; -V?n 74 Ec. 66, as Aram, and Mishna; S nDN 'command to,' where early Heb. uses the direct address, i» 413 914 1 Ch. 134 1516 2118 222 2 Ch. 2021b- »• 30 3i4- " 3316 Ne.8l o15; djn !», Aram, and Mishna; Sn:j Qal 29Ec. 51 792Ch.3521,Pw.8n Pr. 2021, Hiph. 614 2 Ch. 2620 (in these late passages the word means 'hasten,' ordinarily 'terrify'); ftt 'byssus' i6 8" 1 Ch. 421 2 Ch. 2" 314 512 Ez. 2716, a late word instead of the older Jtrf; PH3 'spoil' o10- 15- 18 Dn. 1124 2 Ch. i413+9 t.; pMJ i18 a.X.; rtyjin Hiph. inf. i17 a.X.; rw? 'fortress,' a late loan-word through the Aram, i2 and oft.; jrna only in Est. i5 77- 8, ph. Pers.; npa Niph. 'be afraid,' only 7* Dn. 817 1 Ch. 2130; h% Bfca 'ask for' 48 77, late usage, as Ne. 24 Ezr. 823; r\v?2 53. e. 7. s 72. 3 9i2 Ezr. 76; **J Niph. 21 2 Ch. 2621 La. 3" Ps. 88« Ez. 3711 Is. 538, in the sense of 'was determined,' an Aramaism; h^hi 'rod' Authorship 63 I6 Ct. 514; ^vp 'treasury' 3a 47, NH. and Aram.; im 'drive' 315 612 814 2 Ch. 2620, NH. and Aram.; nnjn 'rest' 218, d.X.; nSxn 'de- liverance' 414, d.X., an Aramaizing form; >i? 5^ Ec. 123, Aram.; jpr p27. 31 Ne. 26 £c> j^ Aram.; Sin Hithpalp. 44, d.X.; im 'white stuff' i6 815, Aram.; TV Hithp. 817; »*>tfn 'holiday' 817 919- 22, as in NH.; tD"V}1i 'more than' 66, c/. Ec. 215 716 129 and NH.; Tfv i4 + 8 t., a late word and Aram.; Be* iiZ"^/*. 'extend' 411 52 84, NH. and Aram.; HD2 Sg 926 d.X.; p3 416 Ec. 810, as in Aram.; djd Qal 416 Ec. 28- 26 Ps. 33' 1 Ch. 222 Ne. 1244, as NH. and Aram.; n»Vo nd? i2 51, instead of ndd ro^DD in older books; ntfa 'be legal' 85 Ec. io10 n6, as NH.; ins 'turban' 1" 217 68, only in Est. and NH.; S with inf., introducing the contents of a letter or command, i22 and oft.; an Aramaism; iend i15 220 932, an Aram, word; nj-Hp i1+28 t., an Aram, word found only in late Heb.; wi np 926, as in NH.; rvoSp 24 t.; so regularly in Dn., Chr., Ezr., the ancient language does not use this word in similar constructions; my Hiph. inf. 3s, constr. w. ace. as in Aram.; pn J4, Aram, loan-word; jn at'i 215- 17 52, instead of the ancient jn nxd, which occurs here only in the set phrase 58 73 85; hy nop 811 9" Dn. S25 n" 1 Ch. 211 2 Ch. 2023 2618, and in general the use of TOP instead of Dip; Wthi 47 io2, only in Est.; Dtt 'fasting,' as in the late books; nimn 'selected' 29, as in NH.; -air 'think' 91, an Aram, loan-word; ^Mlpto 41- 3 Dn. 9s; nic' 38 74, an Aramaism; thti 91 Ec. 219 89 Ne. 515; nji? Pi. 'transfer' 29, an Aramaism; toantr 4" 52 84, Aram.; vy 'alabaster' i6 Ct. 515; rvntr i8 d.X.; rjnan 815, Aram.; 1P> 929 io2 Dn. n17, Aram. § 26. AUTHORSHIP. The intense national spirit of this book and its insertion in the Canon indicate that its author was a Jew. From 25 we may perhaps infer that he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. In re- gard to his place of residence there is a difference of opinion. Willrich thinks that he lived in Egypt. Bloch thinks that he was a Palestinian Jew who sympathized with the Hellenizing move- ment in the days of Antiochus. Gratz and Meijboom hold that he was one of the Palestinian opponents of Antiochus. The absence of reference to Jerusalem and the mention of the Jews "scattered abroad and dispersed" (3s) indicate rather that the author was himself one of the Diaspora. That Heb. could not be written outside of Palestine, except during the Babylonian captivity, as Gratz asserts, is more than doubtful. The Persian words and 64 ESTHER the knowledge of Persian customs that the book contains, suggest that its writer lived in Persia. Purim, as we shall see presently (§ 28), was a feast of foreign origin, and it is probable that its observance was learned outside of Palestine. It is a plausible conjecture that the author was a Persian Jew who had come to live in Judaea, and wished to commend the observance of Purim to the people of that land. § 27. HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE BOOK. For the history of opinion, see § 39. In regard to the historical character of Est., the following facts may be noted: — (1) The book wishes to be taken as history. It begins with the conventional formula "and it came to pass," which puts it into the sequence of the historical books. The argument for the ob- servance of Purim also has no force unless the events narrated actually occurred. Similar claims, however, are made by Jon., Ru., and parts of Ch., that cannot be held to be historical. (2) The book was regarded as historical by the Jewish authori- ties who admitted it to the Canon; but their opinion has no critical value, inasmuch as it is notoriously incorrect in regard to other books of the OT. (3) A few of the statements of Est. are confirmed by external historical evidence. Ahasuerus is a historical personage (cf. § 22), and the picture of his character given in Est. as a sensual and ca- pricious despot corresponds with the account of Xerxes given by Herodotus, vii. ix.; Aesch. Pers. 467 ff., Juv. x. 174-187; yet monarchs of this type were common in the ancient Orient, and the narrative contains so little that is characteristic, that earlier scholars were able to identify Ahasuerus with every one of the kings of Media and Persia. The incidents of Esther can be fitted into the life of Xerxes without great difficulty. He reigned 20 years, and Est. goes no higher than his 12th, or possibly his 13th year (3'- 12). The banquet in the 3d year (i3) may plausibly be combined with the great council which Xerxes held before his invasion of Greece (Herod, vii. 8). The four years that intervened between the deposition of Vashti and the coronation of Esther HISTORICAL CHARACTER 65 (i» 216) may be identified with the four years during which Xerxes was absent on his expedition against Greece, only (216) Esther was taken to the palace by Xerxes in his 7th year (480 B.C.), when, according to Her., he was still in Greece, unless we assume that the years are reckoned in Babylonian fashion from the first full year. Some of the statements of Est. in regard to Persia and Persian customs are confirmed by classical historians. Thus the arrange- ment of the banquet (1 6-8), the seven princes who formed a council of state (i14), obeisance before the King and his favourites (32), belief in lucky and unlucky days (37), exclusion of mourning garb from the palace (42), hanging as the death-penalty (514), dressing a royal benefactor in the King's robes (68), the dispatch- ing of couriers with royal messages (313 810). (For details see the commentary.) The palace of Xerxes as described in Est. is not unlike the palace of Artaxerxes Mnemon as excavated by Dieulafoy at Susa (see com. on i5). All that these facts prove, is that the author had some knowledge of Persia and Persian life which he used to give local colour. They do not prove that his story is historical any more than the local colour of the Arabian Nights proves them to be historical. The following Persian words occur in the book: — tP4f£lffnM 'sa- traps' (312 89 93) = Pers. khshatrapdvan, 'protectors of the realm'; a^nETiN 'royal horses' (810- l4), from Pers. khshatra, 'realm'; jroa 'palace' (i5 y7- 8), according to Dieulafoy, RE J. 1888, cclxxvii. = Pers. apaddna, 'throne-room,' but this is very doubtful (see com. a. /.); onja 'treasury' (3s 41), ph. = N. Pers. kanja (Vullers, Lexicon, ii. 1032; Lagarde, Ges. Abhl. 27); rn 'law' (i8+i8 t.) = Pers. data; Dens 'cotton' (i6) = Skr. karpdsa, N. Pers. karpds (Lagarde, Armen. Stud. § 1 148); nro 'turban' (i11 217 68), ph. Pers. loan-word (Lagarde, Ges. Abhl. 207); D»9*n», 'nobles' (i3 69) = Pers. fratama, 'first'; DJns 'decree* (i20)=Pers. patigdma; fjtfriB 'copy' (314 48 813)= fjcnsi (Ezr. 4"- 23 56) = Pers. paticayan (Lagarde, Ges. Abhl. 79; Armen. Stud. § 1838). These words all belong to the language of government and of trade, and, therefore, do not indicate any peculiar knowledge of Persia on the part of the author of Est. (4) Most of the statements of Est. are unconfirmed by external evidence. The chief personages of the book, Vashti, Haman, 5 66 ESTHER Esther, Mordecai, are unknown to history. Ezr., Ne., the later Psalms, Sirach in his list of Hebrew worthies (Ecclus. 44-49), say nothing of the Jewish queen who saved her nation, or of the mighty Jewish chancellor who was "next unto King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his seed" (io3). Greek historians are equally silent about these two great personages. The book of Est. gives many proper names; e.g., the seven eunuchs (i10), the seven princes (i14), the chief eunuch (23- 8), the ancestors of Mordecai (25), and of Esther (216 o29), the two conspirators (221), the royal officials (214 4s 79), the relatives of Haman (3* 510 Q7-9)- This fact has often been claimed as proof of the historical character of the book, but similar lists are found in Ch., Judith, Tob., S1, ®2, and other late and untrustworthy writings. Mere names prove nothing, except the inventive genius of an author, unless they are confirmed by external evidence. In the case of these names such evidence is not forthcoming. Not one of these persons is mentioned in the Greek account of Xerxes' reign, and their names cannot even be shown to have been in use in the time of Xerxes. In Problemes Bibliqties,=R£j. xxviii. (1894), J. Oppert makes an elaborate attempt to show that the proper names of Est. belong to the idiom of the Achaemenid dy- nasty, and could not have been invented by an author of the Gr. period; but in the opinion of the best authorities, he has not suc- ceeded in proving his contention. He assumes extensive textual corruption, and even then finds hardly any Old Pers. names that are known to us. A number of the names are certainly Persian, but it is not clear that they are Old Pers. Some are probably of Bab., Aram., or even Heb. origin. In the lists of i10- 14 97-9 some of the names are so much alike as to suggest that they are only traditional variants of a single form. All might have been gathered in the Gr. period by an author who knew something about Persia. The supposed Persian names are as follows: — X9. 11. 12. 16. 16. 17. 19 21. 4. I7f ip,^}; w£^,o &I VdStki HJ: AffTIV (&: karri C: a-try 55: OvaaSeiv g3d; Ovaa-rip L. This is identified by Justi, Handbuch der Zendsprache, p. 271; Oppert, Prob., p. 9, with HISTORICAL CHARACTER 67 Pers. Vahista, 'best'; but as a proper name this form is unknown. Jensen (WZKM. 1892, p, 70) connects it with Mashti (=Vashti), an Elamite goddess, just as he connects Hainan with Humman, an Elamite god, Mordecai with Mardnk, and Esther with Ishtar (see § 28). This identification is regarded as possible by Wild., Sieg., Zimmern, Haupt. According to Cheyne (EBi. 5247), Vashti is a corruption of Asshurith, 'Asshur,' being often used as a synonym for Jerahmeel. i10, jp-mp: tw Afxav &: Mctfci>(g (Bafap n <=• *•: Bafra A: Ia$av 64: Afjuiv 249: Bafatfa C: Zafiada 936: Za/3a(j>) 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236: Nabattha (Abathan) H: om. L. This was formerly compared with N. Pers. Bista, 'castrated.' Oppert identifies with Pers. Barita, 'lucky'; Scheftelowitz, with Vijita, 'victory.' Marquart prefers the form in (£, and supposes that the original text in % was jic or pm= Pers. Mazdana (cf. Ba^dvqs in the Alexander-Romance, 219). i10, Kj^ann: (H)arbonaH: Jjar^»»j &: Qappa (& (Apfiwva 93ft: Xapfiwpa C): (N)arbona 31: om. L. In 79 this appears as nnavi: jja_£u»i &: Bovyadav (g: Bovyafav Xc- a: Bovradav N: Bovyada N* 71: Bou7a5ai' 64: Taftovdas 93a: Bouxa^a" 236: Aya^as L: A/3oi>xa5as (2a£ouxa5as) Jos. xi. §§ 261, 266: Buzatas (Baguas) 3j.: Apfiuva 936: Xapftova C. Oppert identifies with Pers. Uvarbdva, gen. Uvarbauna, 'splendour'; Schef., with O. Bactr. Kahrpuna, 'lizard'; Justi, with N. Pers. Kherbdn, 'ass-driver'; Marq., on the basis of Jos. SafiovxaSas, emends to Njmn=Pers. Huwar-baugana. i10, Nru3: BagathaS: )b-^> &■ Bwpafr g^b under *) (c/. i»« Meres and Marsena). Justi identifies with Bagadata and Bagadana, 'gift of God'; Oppert, with Bagita, 'divine'; Schef., with Skr. Vighdta, 'defense'; Marq. emends to Nmjn = Bagadata. i10, N™?N w^j^^o UW« &: Apra{a(& (Afiyada 93a): Achedes 68 ESTHER {Cedes) C: om. L., Justi regards as the same as the last; Oppert, as Pers. Abagita, 'teacher'; Schef., as Skr. Avaghdla, 'blow.' Haupt (HM. ii. p. 125) regards as a gloss (or variant) to the preceding one; and thinks that the original name here was cnn, which is coupled with Bigthan in 221 62 <& A12. & reads Teresh here along with Abhaghtha, ?7N: Admatha 31: ^oio?] &: om. : Pabataleus £: om. (SL. Ac- cording to Oppert, = Pers. Darsis, preserved in the Gr. form Dadarsis, a general under Darius. The Heb. form has been corrupted through influence of the geographical name Tarshish. Schef. identifies with O. Bactr. Tar shush, 'greedy.' On account of its absence from (S, Marq. regards it as merely a variant form of nna> above. i14, Dnp: Mares 3: wxooloj & (aaoio g»A): Eas £: om. <& L. Ac- cording to Oppert, Schef., = Pers. Marsa, 'trial'; according to Marq., Haupt, it is a variant of the following name njdid (cf. above, ili0, Bigtha and Bigthana). i14, NJCno: Marsana 3. ] ij w<^ &: Ma\?7idc: Mamuchan J: ->o^^ j£: Muchaas^,: om. (& L. In i1*, paw: f>iD?? Q: Mamuchan J: ^nSV* &: Movxcuos (g: Bov7cuos L: Micheus (Mardochaus) ffi. Oppert equates with Pers. Vimukhna, 'delivered'; Schef., with Skr. Mumucana, 'cloud.' 23, xjn: so S N2 Br. CB'G Ba.: >on N1 B2 M Norzi: Egei 3: va^ci &: om. (& (v. 8 Tai): Twycuov L. In 28- 15, Wj: ei 3:Tat (& (Tarjv 249): Twycuov 93&: Bou7cuos L (Ffarycuos 93a): Oggeo H. Benfey (Monatsna- men, p. 192) compares Skr. /lga, 'eunuch'; Roediger (Ges. 77^s. Add., p. 83) compares 'H7^as, an officer of Xerxes (Ctesias, Pers., c. 24; Her. ix. ^); Schef. compares O. Bactr. Hugdo, 'possessing beautiful cows.' 27, "tf?nw: commonly identified with Pers. Stdra, 'star'; but, ac- cording to Jensen, = Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess (see §28). 214, 5&*te»* some codd. S B1: n.'f J?£ C Ba. G: Susagazi 3: j 1 4 ^4 J 1 4/ f$: Tcu (& (2la: Zc^o-apa? (& L: 2a>(rapaj> A: Zapaaa-Ta 74, 76?: Apicpada 93ft: a77a 249: Aaa/m5a0ct (5: <&apaa6a a: Bapdada A: Tayaa- 0a 936: Qapdada 243, 249, Aid.: Qopadada C: om. 21. According to Benfey=Pw/w/ato, 'given by lot, or fate'; according to Oppert, = Pers. Puruvata, 'aged'; according to Raw.,= Par u-ratha, 'having many chariots'; according to Schef., = 0. Bactr. Pouruta, 'mountain.' 98, N'VjKI 1 ^* &: Bapaa B: Bape\ n A: Bapea many codd.: rods trtpovs 71: om. EH. According to Justi (Fran. N amen), — 'Afi6\ios; HISTORICAL CHARACTER V according to Schei.,=Addrya, 'honourable'; according to Oppert, = Adalya (for Adardiya), 'brave.' O8, Nn-pN: jZ-f+1 &A'- li-»? &LMU: 2ap£axa (g: Sap/Saica, some codd.: Sap/uaxa 76: Sap/ia/ca 120: 2apaj3axa 236: Apidada 93ft, C: om. L, 71, S. According to Benfey,= Hari-ddta, 'given by Hari (Vishnu) '; according to Raw.,= Ari-data, 'generous'; according to Oppert and $>chei.,=Ariya-data, 'sprung from the Aryan.' q9, Nn^pno: Kfuptni (both a> and n small) G:Phermesta 3: Zn Via?y °] #A: ZA M *"> &LMU: Map/xaaifia d>: Map/wiert/*, N 55, 64, 243, 248, Aid.: Mapp.aaip.va A: Map- paada C: om. H. According to Benary, = Skr. Parameshta, 'the greatest'; similarly Raw., = Pers. Fra-mathista, ' pramagnus'' (so also Oppert and Schef.). 99, ^ns: <*!&*? &: Apsaiov (& (tr. with next): Apveov k: Apiaai 936, C: om. L C Composed, according to Raw., from the intensive particle ari and saya, 'to conquer,' or 'to go.' According to Oppert, the true reading is rns Aryiz= Ariagaya, 'shade of an Aryan.' Ac- cording to Schef., =Skr. Arya-faya, 'having Aryan property.' 99> nT1**" ^»'?l &: ~Pov C. Pellican (1582), L. Lavater (1586), J. Dru- sius (1586), R. Walther (1587), A. M. Jackson (1593), G. Diodati (1607), T. Cooper (1609), the Dutch Annotations (1618), J. Molder (1625), C. Sanctius (1628), H. Grotius (1644), J. Piscator (1646), L. de Dieu (1640), J. Trapp (1654), the Westminster Assembly's Annota- tions (1657), T. Wilson (1663), J. Richardson (1665), B. Kerner (1666), J. C. Zeller (1669), C. a Lapide (1669). The most important of these are Miinster, Drusius, and Grotius. The others are mainly practical and homiletic. All assume Est. to be strictly historical, and the main questions discussed are, whether Ahasuerus had a right to divorce Vashti, whether Esther had a right to marry a heathen, whether Mordecai was justified in advising Esther to conceal her nationality, whether Esther ought to have eaten of the King's food, whether the Jews did right to slay their enemies, and other similar moral and religious ques- tions. A solid knowledge of Heb. is shown by most of these com- mentators, and their interpretations of difficult passages are full of acumen. The Catholic comm. of the same period are also for the most part familiar with Heb., but they make the Vulgate the basis of their discussion, and in their interpretation follow the authority of the Fathers and the tradition of the Church. The apocryphal additions of (8 are regarded as of equal authority with the Heb. text. The mediaeval allegorical exegesis is not abandoned so thoroughly as among the Protestants, and by many Esther is treated as a type of the Blessed Virgin. In spite of these defects, some of these commentaries take a high rank for the historical and linguistic learning that they display. The Catholic comm. of the Reforma- tion period are as follows: — Dionysius Carthusianus (1534), T. de V. Cajetanus (fi534) (Est. in Opera Omnia, ii. 1639, pp. 391 ff.), F. Vatablus (1545), J- Benter REFORMATION PERIOD iOQ (1547), J. Ferns (1567), F. Feuardentius (1585), P. Serarius (1610, see Migne, Cursus Completus, xiii.), T. Malvenda (1610), G. Estius (1614), J. Mariana (1619), E. Sa (1624), J. Couzio (1628), F. Haraeus (1630), J. S. Menochius (1630), Biblia cum Commentariis (1632), J. Tirinus (1632), O. Bonart (1647), D. Celadaeis (1648), Crommius (1648), Montanus (1648), A. Escobar et Mendoza (1667). The most important of these are Cajetanus, Feuardentius, Estius, Mariana, Serarius, and Menochius, who show sound exegetical judgment and make full use of Jewish and Protestant writers. The close of the Reformation period is marked by three great compendia, which sum up the results of a century and a half of labour both on the Catholic and on the Protestant side. The first of these is the Biblia Magna Commentariorium, of J. de la Haye (1643) and the Biblia Maxima of the same author (1660), which contain an elaborate study of the texts and versions and the Esther comm. of the Catholic writers, Estius, Sa, Menochius, and Tirinus. The second is the Critici Sacri, a similar collection of the best comments of the Reformation period from the Protestant point of view (London, 1660). On the Book of Esther this con- tains the comments of Minister, Vatable, Castalio, Drusius, Amama, and the version of Pagninus. The third is the Synopsis criticorum aliorumque S. Scriptures inter preticm, of M. Poole (1669), which in the Book of Est. summarizes the views of Bonart, Cajetan, Drusius, de Dieu, Estius, Grotius, Junius, a Lapide, de Lyra, Malvenda, Mariana, Menochius, Minister, Osiander Piscator, Sanctius, Sa, Serarius, Tirinus, Vatablus, and the versions of Montanus, Pagninus, Junius, and Tremellius, as well as the Tigurina and Genevan versions. Here the leading Catholic and Protestant commentators of the preceding century and a half are admirably collated. The Jewish commentators of the Reformation period are un- affected by the work of Christian scholars, and exhibit the same degenerate type of exegesis that flourished during the Middle Ages. Most of them are destitute of originality, and simply ex- cerpt from the earlier midrashim and from the great commentators of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Some are interesting for their preservation of fragments of otherwise lost writings, but in IIO ESTHER themselves they contribute nothing to the understanding of the Book of Est. Their names are as follows: — Solomon ibn Melcch (Abenmelech), I01"1 SSdd (Venice, 15 18, and oft.), grammatical scholia taken chiefly from Kimhi; Joseph b. David ibn Yahya, m»« (1538); Meir b. Isaac Arama Of 1556), Est. Com. in ms. in Cod. Rossi 727; Zechariah b. Seruk, PTOOTM *D hy pwb (Venice, 1565); Azariah de Rossi, D^y niKD (1573-5), a SOI*t of general introduction to the OT. The third part, njo nDN, treats of the origin of Esther; Eliezer b. Elijah Ashkenazi, nph rpv (Cremona, 1576, and oft.); Elisha b. Gabriel Galliko, 'n 'd rri*fi (Venice, 1583); Shemtob Melammed, »ynD noxD (Constantinople, 1585); Solomon Alkabez, ">iSn nSjn (Venice, 1585), important for its copious citations from lost targums and midrashes; Samuel b. Judah Valerio, "jScn T (Venice, 1586); Solomon b. Zemah Duran of Algiers (f 1593), V*na» Frown (Venice, 1632), contains a discourse on the Amalekites and a com. on Est.; Abraham b. Isaac Zahalon, W>rhn ym (Venice, 1595), compiled entirely from earlier commentators with use of the fourfold method of interpretation; Aaron Abayob, lion pc (Salonica, 1596); Moses Al- mosnino, ne>n *vt a diffuse haggadic commentary, completed in 1570, first published, Venice, 1597; Moses Alsheikh of Safed, rwa niflWD (Venice, i6oi,and oft.); Joseph b. Solomon Taitazak, onno onL' (Venice, 1608); Judah Low b. Bezalel, tf in tin (Prague, 1600, and subs.), con- tains also a discussion of Purim; Mordecai b. Jehiel Merkel, sodt n*vd (Lublin, 1637); Abraham b. Moses Heilbronn, |TO ranN (Lublin, 1639). § 38. THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD. In the second half of the seventeenth century and during the entire eighteenth century few remarkable commentaries on Est. were produced. This was a period of theological narrowness both in the Protestant and the Catholic Church that was unfavourable to exegetical progress. The comm. are mostly dogmatic, homi- letic, and practical, and their authors are content to borrow their materials mainly from the elaborate works of the previous period. The following names may be mentioned: — Among the Protestants, A. Calovius (1672), T. Pyle (1674), J. Mayer (1683), G. Meissner (1687), S., Clarke (1690), F. Burmann (1695), M. Henry (1706), E. Wells (1709), C. Adamus (1710, on Est. 2), T. Pyle (1717), J. J. Rambach (1720), S. Patrick (1727), F. Wokenius (1730^ MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD HI J. le Clcrc (Clericus) (1733), S. Horsley (1733), j. Marchant (1745). Of these Clericus is probably entitled to the first rank as the ablest exegete of the period. The Catholic commentators of this period arc J. B. du Hamel (1706), A. Calmet (1707), J. Martianay (1708), C. Chais (1743), Biblia Sacra Vulgata cum plur. inter p. (1745), C. Nestorideo (1746). Calmet is the chief of these, but all fall below the standard of the Catholic commen- taries of the preceding period. B. Spinoza in his Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), x. 22, discusses the origin of Est. in a truly critical spirit, but here, as in so many other particulars, he is in advance of his age. His opinions made no impres- sion upon his coreligionists, and little upon Christian thinkers. The only Jewish commentator of this period known to me is Meir b. Hayyim, t» iwd (1737). § 39. THE MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD. In the middle of the eighteenth century there arose the remark- able movement of thought known as the Aufkldrung. In all realms of knowledge men broke away from tradition, and sub- jected everything received from the past to a searching examina- tion. The result was a revolution in Biblical exegesis. One of the first-fruits of this movement was a critical study of the text of the OT. As early as 1720 J. H. Michaelis in his Biblia Hebraica collected a number of variants in the Heb. text. He was followed by C. F. Houbigant,, Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis (1753), and Notce criticce (1777); B. Kennicott, V. T. Heb. cum variis lectionibus (1776-80); C. F. Schnurrer, Varice lectiones Estheris (1783); and J. B. de Rossi, Varice lectiones V. T. (1784-8). The importance of these works for the lower criticism of Est. has been noticed already in § 3. At the same time a new interest was awakened in the problems of the higher criticism. The rationalists, who denied supernatural revelation, took a free attitude toward the Biblical books, and had no hesitation in questioning their historical character, if they found reason for so doing. The historical and moral difficulties of the Book of Est. early became objects of their attack. These assaults called forth replies in defence of the historical and relig- ious value of the book from theologians of the traditional school. From this time onward scholars are divided into two hostile 112 ESTHER camps, the one attacking, and the other defending, the traditional Jewish conception of Est. The critical problems of composition, age, authorship, and historical credibility have been discussed for the most part in Biblical introductions, Biblical histories, and special introductions to the Book of Esther. These works have exerted so strong an influence upon modern interpretation, and are frequently so much more important than the commentaries, that it is proper to enumerate them at this point. So far as I am aware, Semler, in 1773, was the first critic to make a formal attack upon the historical credibility of Esther; but in 1736 the adverse strictures upon this book in the writings of the English deists and early German rationalists were already sufficiently numerous to call forth the treatise of C. A. Heumann, De in qua histories sacrce de Esthera Asice regina sua vindicatur auctoritas. A similar position was held by Chandler, Vindication of the History oftJie OT. (1741); J. H. D. Moldenhauer, Introductio (1744), pp. J5ff.; J. G. Carpzov, Introductio3 (1741), pp. 350 ff.\ T. C. Lilienthal, Gute Sache der gbttlichen Offenbarung, xv. (1776), pp. 195-271. G. F. Oeder, Freye Unter- suchung iiber den Kanon des A. T. (1771), pp. T-2 ff., and Freye Unter- suchung iiber einige Bilcher des A. T. (1771), p. 1/., denied that the book had any historical value. This called forth the replies of C. F. Sar- torius, De utilitate librorum V. T. historicorum apud Christianos (1772); J. Aucher, Disquisitio de canonica auctoritate libri Esther ce (1772); E. A. Schulze, De fide hist. lib. Est., in Bibl. Hag. v., vi. (1772); and C. A. Crusius, De usu libri Esther ce ad praxin vitce Christiance (1772), German edition, 1773. J. S. Semler, Apparatus ad liberalem V. T. inter preta- tionem (1773), pp. 152 ff., and Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons (1771-5), ii. p. 251, renewed the attack with extraordinary ferocity. This called forth the replies of J. A. Vos, Oratio pro libro Esther (1775); J. J. Hess, Geschichte der Israeliten (1776-88); P. J. Bruns, Entwurf einer Einleitung (1784); F. S. Eckard, Philos. u. krit. Untersuchung iiber das A. T. u. dessen Gbttlichkeit (1787); S. G. Unger, De auctoritate librorum V. T. infamilia Dei (1785). In various forms the attack on the historical credibility of the book was renewed by J. D. Michaelis, Bibl. Orient.,!!. (1775), pp. 34#.; J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung (1780); H. E. Gute, Einleitung (1787); H. Corrodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung d. judischen Bibelkanons (1792), pp. 64/".; A. H. Niemeyer, Characteristick der Bibel, v. (1782), pp. 224^., who remarks thatVashti is the only decent character in the book. From the nineteenth century come the following works in which the problems of the higher criticism of Est. are discussed. Those marked MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD H<} with (C) are conservative treatises that defend the traditional concep- tion of the book, the others regard it as wholly or in part a work of the imagination: — J. Jahn (Catholic), Einleitung, ii. (1803), pp. 295^. (C); G. L. Bauer, Einleitung (1806), pp. 364 jf.\ J. C. W. Augusti, Einleitung (1806); L. Bertholdt, Einleitung, v. (1815), pp. 2413^.; L. D. Cramer, Hist. sent, de sac. lib. V. T. anctoritate (1818) (C); C. G. Kelle, V indicia Esther-is, libri sacri, ad castigatam histor. interpretation's normam exacts (1820), see Theol. Anal. (1822), pp. 431^". (C); F. Ackermann (Catholic), Introductio (1825), 4th ed. (1869), pp. 186/. (C); W. M. L. de Wette, Einleitung (181 7, and oft.); M. Baumgarten, De fide libri Esther a (1839); H. A. C. Havernick, Einleitung, ii. 1 (1839), pp. 328 ff. (C); J. G. Herbst (Catholic), Einleitung, ii. (1842), pp. 249^". (C); F. C. Movers, Loci quidam histories canonis V. T. illustrati (1842), p. 27/.; H. Ewald, Geschichte (1843), 3^ ed. (1864), iv. pp. 296 ff.; Eng. Trans., v. 230; J. M. A. Scholz (Catholic), Einleitung, i. (1845), pp. 514/- (C); J. G. B. Winer, Art. "Esther" in Bib. Realworterbuch3 (1847); E. Meier, Geschichte der poetisclien National- Liter atur der Hebrder (1856), pp. 505 ff.; J. A. Nickes (Catholic), De Estherce libro (1856), two large volumes (C); S. Davidson, Introduction, ii. (1862), pp. 151/.; hi. (1863), pp. 391/.; E. Riehm, SK. 1862, p. 407/.; J. J. Stahelin, Einleitung (1862), pp. 170 ff.; H. H. Millman, History of the Jews (1863), ed. N. Y., 1881, pp. 472/. (C); A. P. Stanley, History (1863), iii. (1877), pp. 192 ff.; J. Oppert, Commentaire historique et philologique du livre d' Esther d'apres la lecture des inscriptions Perses,= Annates Phil. Chret. (1864) (C); Articles on Esther, etc.; in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (1863 and 1893) (C); G. Weber and O. Holz- mann, Geschichte, i. (1867), p. 418; T. Noldeke, A. T. Literatur (1868), pp. 8ijf.; A. D. Aeschimann, Etude surle livre d' 'Esther (1868); E. Reuss, Art. "Esther" in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon (1869); F. Hitzig, Geschichte (1869), pp. 279 ff.; E. Schrader, Einleitung (1869), pp. 396 ff.; Bleek- Kamphausen, Einleitung (1870), pp. 402^".; L. S. P. Meijboom, Raad- selachtige verhalen uit het O.en het N. Verbond (1870), pp. 90 ff.; Articles on "Esther," etc., in Hamburger, Realencyklopadie (1870-97); F. H. Reusch (Catholic), Einleitung (1870), pp. 132 /. (C>; H. Zschokke (Catholic), Historia (1872), pp. 308 /. (C); Bertholdt and Zunz, ZDMG. 1873, p. 684; C. F. Keil, Einleitung (1873), pp. 487/., 730/. (C); H. Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, ii. (1875), pp. 332, 339^".; A. Kohler, Geschichte, iii. (1893), p. 593 (C); L. Herzfeld, Geschichte (1870), pp. 108 ff.; A. Geiger (Jew), Einleitung, in Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. (1877), p. 170; J. S. Bloch (Jew), Hellenistische Bestand- theile im biblischen Schriftthum, eine kritische Untersuchung uber Abfassung, Character u. Tendenzen des B. Esther (1877, i882)=/wd. Lit. Bl. 1877, Nos. 27-34; T. K. Cheyne, Articles on "Esther," etc., in EB. (1878 sq.); P. Kleinert, Abriss der Einleitung (1878), pp. 56/., S 114 ESTHER 68, 79; B. Hausc (Jew), "Nodi einmal d. B. Esther," Jild. Lit. Bl. viii. (1879), No. 42 (C); E. Ledrain (Catholic), Histoire, ii. (1882), pp. 103, 170 (C); C. M. Horowitz, "Ueber die Peripetie im B. Est.," MGWJ. xxxi. (1882), pp. 49 ff.; R. P. Stcbbins, .4 Common-sense View of the Books of the O. T. (1885), pp. 120/.; J. S. Bloch, "Der historische Hintergrund und die Abfassungszeit d. B. Est.," MGWJ. 1886, pp. 425/-, 473 I; 52i/-; W. Vatke, Einleitung (1886), pp. 496/-; W. Schanz (Catholic), Einleitung (1887), pp. 480/. (C); F. W. Weber, Einleitung (1887), pp. 66^*.; R. Comely (Catholic), Introductio (1897), ii. 1, pp. 417 ff. (C); E. Riehm, Einleitung, ii. (1890), pp. 339 ff.; M. Vernes, Precis d'histoire Juive (1889), pp. 824^".; A. Scholz (Catholic), "Die Namen im B. Est.," Tub. Theol. Quartalschrift, lxxii. (1890), pp. 209/".; P. H. Hunter, After the Exile (1890), pp. 237^.; F. Kaulen (Catholic), Einleitung* (1890), pp. 269/". (C); F. Robiou (Catholic), "Sur le charactere historique du livre d'Esther," Science Cath., Dec, 1890; J. Mally (Catholic), Hist. Sacra A. I . (1890); E. Reuss, Gesch. der heiligen Schriften A. T. (1890), pp. 610^".; Steinthal, Zu Bibel- u. Religion sphilo so phie (1890), pp. 53^*., "Haman, Bileam und der judische Nabi"; W. Gladden, Who Wrote the Bible (1892), pp. 161 ff.; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the O. T.2 (1892), pp. 155 ff.; J. Robert- son, "Esther," in Book by Book (1892); W. R. Smith, The OT. in the Jewish Church2 (1892), p. 458; Germ, trans., p. 447; J. J. de Villiers, "Modern Criticism and the Megilla," Jew. Chronicle, Feb., 1893; T. K. Cheyne, Founders of OT. Criticism (1893), pp. 359^".; E. Konig, Einleitung (1893), pp. 289^., 450 jf., 481 /.; Articles "Esther," etc., in Riehm, Handworterbuch des biblischen Alterthums2 (1893-4); R. Smend, A. T. Religionsgeschichte (1893), pp. 331, 406 ff.; A. H. Sayce, An Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther* (1893) (C); A. Schlatter (Catholic), Einleitung* (1901), p. 138/. (only the main points of the story are historical); J. Oppert, Problemes Bibliques (1894)= REJ. xxviii. (1894); Ellicott, Plain Introduction (1894) (C); A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments (1895), pp. 469/.; H. Schultz, A. T. Theologie (1889), p. 417; H. L. Strack, Einleitung^ (1898), pp. 146 ff.; Articles in Vigouroux, Dictionaire de la Bible (1895 sq., Catholic); K. Schlottmann, Kompendium d. bibl. Theol. (1895), pp. 66 ff. (Est. is inspired, but not to the same degree as other books); E. Kautzsch, Abriss d. alttest. Schrifttums, pp. 116 ff., in Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift (1896); C. v. Orelli, Art. "Esther" in PRE.* (1896); K. A. Beck (Catholic), Geschichte2 (1901), pp. 449 ff. (C); A. K. Fiske, Jewish Scriptures (1896), pp. 342 jf.; F. Hommel, Ancient Heb. Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments (1896), pp. 161 ff.; J. Marquart, Fundamente (1896), pp. 68-73; J. M. Whiton, "Esther," in Moulton and others, The Bible as Literature (1896), pp. 61 ff.; G. Wildeboer, De letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds (1893); MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD 115 Germ, trans. (1895), pp, 444 ff.\ F. de Moor, "Lc livrc d'Esther," Science Cath., Oct., 1897; W. Gladden, Seven Puzzling Bible Books (1897), pp. 68^".; E. Schurer, Geschichte d. jildischen Volkes* (1898-01), i. pp. 142, 156, 752; Iii. pp. 330 ff.\ E. Rupprecht, Einleitung (1898), pp. 439#; C. H. H. Wright, Introduction* (1890), pp. 140/. (C); J. A. M'Clymont, "Esther" in HDB. (1899); D. Leimdorfer, Zur Kritik d. B. Esther (1899) (C); C P. Tiele and W. P. Kosters, Art. "Ahasuerus" in EBi. (1899). To the twentieth century belong the following introductory works: H. Willrich, Judaica (1900), chap. 1, "Esther und Judith"; I. Schef- telowitz, Arisches im A. T. (1901); T. Noldeke, Art. "Esther" in EBi. (1901); S. R. Driver, Introduction9 (1901), pp. 478^".; W. W. Baudissin, Einleitung (1901), pp. 305 ff.\ H. P. Smith, OT. History (1903), pp. 485/.; G. W. Wade, OT. History (1904), pp. 473 /.; W. S. Watson, "The Authenticity and Genuineness of the Book of Esther," Princeton Theol. Rev. i. (1903), pp. 64/".; J. D. Prince and E. G. Hirsch, "Esther" in JE. (1903); I. Scheftelowitz, "Zur Kritik des griechischen u. des massoretischen Buches Esther," MGWJ. xlvii. (1903), pp. 24^"., ixoff.; J. Halevy, "Vashti," J A. , X. Ser., i. (1903), p. 377/.; H. Chavannes, "Le livre d'Esther," Rev. de Theol. et de Quest. Rel. (1903); 2, pp. 177— 192; 3, pp. 114-119; H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der macca- bdischen Erhebung (1905); H. Pope, "Why does the Protestant Church read the Book of Esther?" Dublin Rev. (1905), pp. 7J ff.; J. H. Raven, Introduction (1906), pp. 312 ff. (C); S. Jampel, Das Buch Esther auf seine Geschichtlichkeit untersucht (1907), reprinted from articles in MGWJ. 1905-6; L. B. Paton, "A Text-critical Apparatus to the Book of Esther," Harper Memorial, ii. (1908), pp. 1-52; P. Haupt, "Critical Notes on Esther," Harper Memorial, ii. (1908), pp. ii3-204=^4/5'L. xxiv. (1908), pp. 97-186. For special treatises on the origin of Purim, see § 28. The Protestant Commentaries on the Book of Esther that have been written since 1750, have all been compelled to notice the critical investigations mentioned in the previous paragraph, but in the main they have occupied a more conservative position than the introductory works. All the English commentaries until recently have been of the practical homiletical type, and have treated the critical problems that the book raises in a superficial manner. They have derived their material largely from the comm. of the Reformation and post- Reformation periods, and in scholar- ship they fall below the level of the leading English comm. of the seventeenth century. In Germany they have been more influ- Il6 ESTHER enced by modern criticism, still many of them show no advance beyond the dogmatic standpoint of the seventeenth century. In the following list I have omitted titles where Est. forms part of a commentarv on the whole OT. J. G. Rinck (1755), com. on Est. 1; C. Simeon (1759); A. Clarke (1760); F. E. Boysen (1760); J. B. Koehler (1763), on Est. 1; A. Purver (1764); J. Wesley (1764); T. Haweis (1765); B. Boothroyd (1768); W. Dodd (1770); J. F. Ostervald (1772); J. A. Dathe (1773); C. B. Schmidt (1773); V. Zinck (1780); J. C. F. Schulze (1783); J. D. Mi- chaelis (1785), one of the more important of the older commentaries; J. Yonge (1787); R. Gray (1792); J. C. W. Augusti (1797); D. Macrae (1799); J. Hewlett (181 2), one of the more important early English comm.; C. Buckley (1802); J. Priestly (1803); G. Lawson, Discourses on Est. (1804); J. Hall (1808); S. Burder (1809); J. Gill (1809); J. Ben- son (1818); D'Oyley and Mant (1814); D. H. A. Schott (1816); A. G. F. Schirmer, Observationes exeg. crit. in lib. Est. (1817); J. Bellamy (1818); T. Scott (1822); J. Sutcliffe (1834); T. M'Crie, Lectures on Esther (1838); F. J. V. D. Maurer (1835), valuable gram, and text-critical remarks; J. Hughes, EstJter and her People, Ten Sermons (1842); R. A. F. Barrett, Synopsis of Criticisms, iii. (1847), a learned and useful work; R. C. Morgan, The Book of Esther typical of the Kingdom (1855); E. P. L. Calm berg, Liber Esther illustratus (1857); J. Cordthwaite, Lectures on Esther (1858); A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther (1859); E. Bertheau (1862), a very important book; C. Wordsworth (1866); A. Kamphausen, Esther, in Bunsen's Bibelwerk (1868), brief and popular but scientific; C. F. Keil, in Keil and Delitzsch's Com. (1870), ultra- conservative, but one of the most scholarly and thorough of the mod- ern commentaries; G. Rawlinson, in the Speaker's Com. (1873), brief and critically inadequate, but containing useful illustrations from Oriental sources; M. S. Terry, in Wheedon's Com. (1873); R. Jamieson (1876); F. W. Schultz, in Lange's Com. (1876), an elaborate and valu- able work, Eng. trans, by J. Strong (1877); J. H. Blunt (1878); P. Cassel, Das Buch Esther, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Morgenlandes (1878), valuable exegetical remarks, and full of illustrative material derived from the targumic and midrashic literature, Eng. trans, by A. Bern- stein; W. T. Mason, Questions on Ezr., Neh., and Est. (1880); A. Raleigh, The Book of Esther, its Practical Lessons and Dramatic Scenes (1880); G. Rawlinson, in Spence and Exall's Pulpit Com. (1880); J. W. Haley, The Book of Esther, a new Translation with Critical Notes, etc. (1885), very conservative, but useful; V. Ryssel, Second ed. of Bertheau's Com. in the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum A. T. (1887), the most complete scientific commentary of modern times; MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD 117 S. Oettli in Strack and Zockler's Kurzgefasster Kommentar (1889), brief but valuable, represents a moderately conservative view; E. Reuss, Das A. T. iibersetzt, eingeleitet u. erlautert (1892-4); W. F. Adeney, in the Expositor's Bible (1893), popular but scientific; V. Ryssel, in Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift des A. T. (1896); G. Wildeboer, in Marti's Kurzer Handcommentar (1898), much condensed, but thoroughly scientific and very important; C. Siegfried, in Nowack's Handcommentar (1901), also much condensed, but extremely useful; W. Harper, in the Temple Bible (1902); J. E. Cumming, The Book of Esther, its Spiritual Teaching (1906), a curious survival of mediaevalism; A. W. Streane, in the Cambridge Bible (1907), a brief but scholarly little commentary. The Catholic Church, during the modern period, has contented itself for the most part with reprints and compendia of the older commentators. The few new commentaries that have been written, have been relatively unimportant. They are as follows: — J. N. Alber (1801-4), a very elaborate work; B. Neteler (1877); A. Arnaud (1881); L. de Sacy, Vhistoire d'Esther traduit (1882); E. Ledrain, La Bible, traduction nouvelle (1891); L. C. Fillion (1891); A. Scholz, Commentar iiber das Buch Esther mit seinen Zusatzen (1892), a work of great learning, but disfigured by the constant use of allegorical exegesis; Comely, Knabenbauer, Hummelauer, and others, Commen- tariain V. T. (1907); M. Seisenberger, in Kurzgefasster wissenschaftlicher Kommentar (1901). The new thought that roused Christendom in the middle of the eighteenth century also affected a small section of the Jews. Moses Mendelssohn, the philosopher, the father of modern liberal Judaism, projected a complete commentary on the Heb. Bible from a critical point of view. This is known as r)*DTl3 *"l£D D'Htm, and was completed by a school of exegetes in sympathy with Mendelssohn and known as the "Biurists." The com. on Est. (1788) contains a German translation by A. Wolfsohn and a Heb. commentary by J. Lowe. Similar in character, and aiming to convey to the Jews the best results of modern Biblical study, is L. Philippsohn, Die Israelitische Bibel (1858). I. Reggio's nnDN nSjn hy nneD, "Key to the Roll of Esther," is a modern critical introduction to the book of much merit. Other Jewish comm. of a modern type are S. Herxheimer, Die vier und zwanzig Biicher der Bibel, u. s. w. iv. (1848), pp. 449/. (many later separate Il8 ESTHER editions of Est., last ed. 1902). S. Cahen, La Bible, traduction nouvelle (1848); J. Fiirst, Illustrirte Pracht-Bibel fiir Israeliten (1874); U. M. P. Hillesum, Het Boek Esther vertaald en verklaard (1902), Heb. text with very brief but judicious notes. Most of the Jewish commentaries of this period have remained on the traditional ground and have been content to make new collections of excerpts from the ancient midrashim and the great commentators of the Middle Ages. They are as follows: — Moses Isserles \" "VTO (Offenbach, 1779), characterized by extreme use of the allegorical method; Aaron Bar Pereles rnron rSj *n» (Prague, 1784), and pn *IWB (Prague, 1790); Jonathan Eybeschiitz, nyw> n^i-u (Warsaw, 1864); A. Hiibsch, mSjo e>nn (Prague, 1866); Elijah hag-Gaon, of Wilna, ** *D isd (Jerusalem, 1872); Jacob Ehrenpreis, '« nSjD (Lemberg, 1874); Joseph Zechariah, innn cnn iin3 (Wilna, 1875); Meir Malbin, 'n pSjd (Warsaw, 1878), with RaShI, ©», etc.; Moses Isaac Ashkenazi (Tedeschi), WD Win (Livorno, 1880); H. D. Bawli, nros hSjd Sn cnn nncD (1880); D. Kohn, nisd Nini irox yn nsD 'h %th (Warsaw, 1881); Nathaniel Hayyim Pape, 'n 'd idd (Jerusalem, 1892). A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ESTHER. THE TITLE. In Heb. manuscripts and printed editions the book bears the title Esther. In accordance with the analogy of other OT. books this title may mean either that Esther is the author or the heroine. The internal evidence shows the latter to be the correct interpretation. inDN in Gr. 'Eadfy (B A M L), or 'Aia-Ofy (93a). Cod. 44 adds, the twenty-second book. A later hand in 108b adds, that is Purim. The Mishna (Baba Bathra 14&) calls the book -inDN rV?Jip, "Roll of Esther." This is a late designation due to the fact that Est., like the Law, was written on a scroll, rather than a codex, for use in the service of the Synagogue. In still later times the book was called simply Manilla, "the Roll," par excellence. ADDITION A. MORDECAI'S DREAM. Between the title and i1, <££L add the following section, A1-" (=Vulg. and Eng. Ad. Est. 112-126). The Gr. text and critical apparatus to it may be seen in HM . ii. pp. 6-7. In various dis- torted forms the passage appears in late Heb. and Aram, midrashes (see Introduction, § 34). For a discussion of the origin and character of the passage, see the Introduction, § 20. The addi- tion is as follows: 1 In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the Great, on the first day of the month of Nisan, Mordecai, son of J air, son of Shimei, son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, had a dream. 2 He was a Jew dwell- no 120 ESTHER ing in the city of Susa, a great man, serving in the King's court. 3 He was of the captivity, which Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon carried from Jerusalem with Jeconiah King of Judah; 4 and this was his dream: Behold, noise and tumult, thunderings and earthquake, uproar upon the earth: 5 and, behold, two great dragons came forth, both of them ready to fight, 6 and their cry was great. And at their cry all nations were prepared for battle, that they might fight against the righteous nation. 7 And lo, a day of darkness and gloom, tribulation and anguish, affliction and great uproar upon the earth. 8 And the whole righteous nation was troubled, fearing the evils that should befall them, and were ready to perish. 9Then they cried unto God; and upon their cry, as it were from a little fountain, there came a great river, even much water. 10 The light and the sun rose up, and the lowly were exalted, and de- voured the glorious. u Now when Mordecai, who had seen this dream, and what God had determined to do, awoke, he bore it in mind, and until night by all means was desirous to understand it. 12And Mor- decai slept in the court with Gabatha and Tharra, the two eunuchs of the King, the keepers of the court. 13 And he heard their communings, and searched out their purposes, and learned that they were about to lay hands upon King Artaxerxes; and he informed the King about them. 14 Then the King examined the two eunuchs, and after they had con- fessed, they were led to execution. 15 And the King wrote these things for a memorial; Mordecai also wrote concerning these things. 16So the King commanded Mordecai to serve in the court, and for this he gave him gifts. ,7But Haman, son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, who was in great honour with the King, sought to injure Mordecai and his people because of the two eunuchs of the King. THE REJECTION OF QUEEN VASHTI (i»-»). XERXES MAKES A FEAST FOR HIS OFFICIALS (i14)- 1. And afterward]. This expression, by AV. and RV. rendered, now it came to pass, is used in continuation of a historical narrative, and implies a preceding verb in the perfect. Many of the books of the OT. are meant to be read in connection with those that pre- cede them; but here, as in Jon. i1, no such connection is possible. The phrase cannot be due, as perhaps Jon. i l, to the fact that Est. is an extract from a larger history (Scho.); nor that in late Heb. and afterward had lost its original meaning (Keil, Wild., and the older comm. in general); nor that knowledge of the earlier history of Xerxes is presupposed in the reader (Bert., Oct.); but it is an XERXES' FEAST 121 imitation of the beginnings of the older histories, designed to suggest that Est. belongs to this class of literature. — {<& L + After these events]. This addition is made with reference to the section A1-17 that has just been inserted by (& L. — In the days of], the usual ex- pression for the period of a king's reign, cf. Gn. 14* 1 S. 1712 2 S. 211 1 K. 10" 2129 and often. — Xerxes] Heb. ' Ahashwerosh (Ahasuerus). On the identity of this monarch with Xerxes I, see Introduction, § 22. Xerxes was the son of Darius by Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus. He was not the oldest son; but, as the first born after his father became king, and as the grandson of the great Cyrus, he succeeded in making good his claim to the throne upon the death of Darius in 486 B.C. He had the reputation of being the tallest and the handsomest man among the Persians (Her. vii. 187). In spite of many noble characteristics, he showed on the whole a weak and passionate disposition that unfitted him for his high office, and made his rule inglorious. The most important event of his reign was the unsuccessful war with Greece in 480-470 B.C., rendered forever memorable by the narrative of Herodotus in books vii.-ix. of his history.* The architectural undertakings of Xerxes were numerous, and in Persepolis the ruins of several of his buildings are still to be seen.f In these buildings a number of trilingual in- scriptions of this King have been discovered, t He was assassi- nated in 465 B.C. by the officers of his palace. After the name of Xerxes, ®2 gives a long addition in regard to the ten kings who have ruled, or shall rule, the earth; the accession of Evil-Merodach, his relations to Daniel and Jehoiachin, and the accession of Darius. As this has nothing to do with the story of Esther, it is not inserted here. — He is the Xerxes]. This and what follows to the end of v. x is a parenthesis breaking the connection between Xtt and «». The writer knows other historical personages by the name of 'Ahashwerosh, and, therefore, finds it necessary to define which one he means. It is not likely that he knew Xerxes II, who reigned ♦See Meyer, Geschichte des AUertums, iii. pp. 337-417; Justi, in Geiger-Kuhn, Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie, ii. pp. 457-460. tSee Niebuhr, Reisebeschreibung, vol. ii.; Flandin et Coste, Perse ancienne; Voyage en Perse (1851-52); Stolze, Persepolis (1882); Perrot et Chipiez, Hist, de I' Art, v. (1890), P- 403 fi- + See Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschr., pp. 59-67. 122 ESTHER for only a few months in 424 B.C.; but he must have known 'Ahash- werosh, the father of Darius the Mede (Dn. 91), and 'Ahashwe- rosh, King of Persia, who stopped the building of the Temple, whom Ezr. 46 places between Cyrus and Darius. From one or both of these he distinguishes this 'Ahashwerosh by the fact that "he reigned from India to Ethiopia." The father of Darius the Mede is not said to have been a king, and the 'Ahashwerosh of Ezr. 46 is perhaps regarded as living before the great expansion of the Persian empire. Here, accordingly, Xerxes the Great must be meant. At this point the Targums insert the following passages: [S1 -f In whose days the work upon the house of our great God ceased and was interrupted until the second year of Darius, on account of the advice of the wicked Vashti, the daughter of Evil-Merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar. And because she did not permit the building of the house of the sanctuary, it was decreed concerning her that she should be put to death naked; and he also, because he gave heed to her advice, had his days cut short and his kingdom divided; so that, whereas before all peoples, races, languages, and eparchies were subject to his authority, they now served him no longer because of this. But after it was revealed before the Lord that Vashti was to be slain, and that he was to accept Esther, who was of the daughters of Sarah, who lived 127 years, a res- pite was granted to her.] [5t2 + The son of Cyrus, King of Persia, son of Darius, King of Media. He was the Xerxes who commanded to bring wine from 127 provinces for 127 kings who were reclining before him, that every man might drink of the wine of his own province and not be hurt. He was the Xerxes whose counsel was foolish, and whose decree was not established. He was the Xerxes, the corrupt king. He was the Xerxes who commanded to bring Vashti, the queen, naked before him, but she would not come. He was the Xerxes, the wicked king, the fool, who said: Let my kingdom perish, but let not my decree fail. He was the Xerxes in whose days the children of Israel were sold for no money, as it is written, "Behold ye shall be sold for naught." He was the Xerxes who commanded to bring cedars from Lebanon and gold from Ophir, but they were not brought. He was the Xerxes in whose days the faces of the house of Israel were black, like the outside of a pot. He was the Xerxes in whose days that was accomplished upon the house of Israel which is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, "In the morning thou shalt say: Would that it were evening," . . . and because of what he said, and because of what he did, his days were shortened. . . . He was the Xerxes who killed his wife for the sake of his friend. He was the Xerxes who killed his friend for the sake of his wife. He was the Xerxes.] XERXES' FEAST 123 lb. Who used to reign from India]. HoddH, 'India,' is Old Pers. Hind'u, Skr. Sindhu, 'river,' i.e., the Indus, and refers only to the northwest portion of the peninsula, that drained by the river Indus. This is also the meaning of India in classical geography. The modern application of the name to the whole peninsula has arisen by a process of extension similar to that by which Palestine (Philistia) has come to be the name of the whole of Canaan.* According to Arrian (Ind. i. 1), Cyrus extended his conquests to the border of India (Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums,4 iv. p. 370). The conquest of India by Darius, the father of Xerxes, is recorded in Her. iii. 94-106; iv. 44. Indian troops fought in the armies of Darius and of Xerxes (vii. 65, 70). — Even unto Kush\ Neither the Babylonian nor the Arabian Kush is meant, but the African, i.e., Ethiopia, the modern Nubia. Ethiopia was subdued by Cambyses (Her. iii. 97), and was part of the empire of Darius and of Xerxes (Her. vii. 9, 65, 69/.). In iii. 97 and vii. 70, Her. combines India and Ethiopia in a manner similar to this passage. They are also given as the confines of the Babylonian empire in (£ Dn. 31 and 1 Esd. 32. In Xerxes' own inscriptions he speaks of himself as "the great King, the King of Kings, the King of the lands occupied by many races, the King of this great world" (Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschr., p. 59). — [2I1 + Which is east of great India, and unto the west of Kush:] [®2 + From India which is in the west unto Kush which is in the east.] These insertions are due to the idea that Kush lay in the neighbourhood of India. — Seven and twenty and a hundred prov- inces]. This clause is not the object of used to rule, since this verb is regularly construed with the preposition over. It must be taken as an appositive, explaining the meaning of the foregoing clause from India even unto Kush. The 127 provinces are men- tioned again in 89 and in ^ in B1 E1 1 Esd. 32. In Dn. 62 f*> Darius the Mede appoints satraps over 120 provinces. By the addition of 7 provinces the author perhaps intends to convey the idea that the empire of Xerxes was even greater than that of Darius. Her. iii. 89 says that Darius divided the empire into ♦See von Bohlen, Das alte Indien, pp. 9, 17; Wahl, V order- tmd Mittelasien, i. p. 359 f}.; Lassen, Indische Alterthunnkunde, i. p. 2; Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschrijten, p. 246. 124 ESTHER 20 satrapies. Jos. Ant. x. 249 gives Darius the Mede 360 provinces, but in the story of Esther he has the same number as ^. In his own inscriptions, Darius enumerates in the earliest period 21 provinces, later 23, and finally 29 (Spieg., pp. 3-59), confirm- ing thus the statement of Herodotus. To explain the discrepancy between Est. and Her., comm. generally assume that the provinces of Est. are smaller racial groups into which the satrapies of Her. were divided. This view derives some support from 312, "unto the satraps of the King and the governors of the provinces" (cf. 89 93), which suggests that the provinces were smaller than the satrapies. In Ezr. 21 Ne. 76 n3 "the province" means no more than Judaea, but this was only a part of the great satrapy of Trans-Euphrates, which included Syria, Phoenicia, and Cyprus. Other comm. regard the 127 provinces as an exaggeration similar to those found elsewhere in this book (see § 27). Scho. regards the number as symbolic; 12, the number of the tribes; X 10, the number of com- pleteness; + 7, the number of perfection, means that all nations were subject to Xerxes. This view finds some support in the fact that Meg. 11a interprets the 127 provinces as meaning that Xerxes reigned over the whole earth.* 2. In those days], a resumption of the thought of la, which has been interrupted by the parenthesis in lb. — When King Xerxes took his seat]. The language suggests the beginning of his reign, but i3 says that it was in the third year. Meg. 11b solves the difficulty by taking the phrase in the sense of "when he was established," and this view has been extensively followed by later Jewish comm. So also Lyra, Mar., Vat., Cler., Ramb., Hew., Clark. Those who regard 'Ahashwerosh as identical with Artaxerxes Longimanus, see in this an allusion to the political disturbances that followed the assassination of Xerxes II, and take it to mean "when King Artaxerxes enjoyed peace." This, however, is an impossible translation. The phrase, accordingly, must be regarded as re- ferring, not to the absolute beginning of the King's reign, but to the beginning of his reign in Susa. The Medo-Persian empire *On the organization of the Persian empire, see Brisson, De reg. Pers. principatu. i. 160 (for references in classical writers); Meyer, Qesch. d. Altertums, chap, i.; Justi, in Geiger- K.uhn, Iran. Phil., pp. 432-438; Huchholz, Questiones de Persarum Satrapis satrapiisquc (1895)- XERXES* FEAST 125 had three capitals, Susa, Ecbatana, and Babylon, besides the royal residence at Persepolis. These events occurred at the time when Xerxes took up his residence in Susa (so Drus., Cas., Sane, Rys.). Will. (pp. 16, 21) understands the phrase of the official coronation. The Pers. monuments represent kings seated upon a lofty chair, and Gr. writers record that they travelled, and even went into battle, seated upon a throne (see Baum., p. 85 ff.). This was not a distinctively Pers. custom. Among the Hebrews, and throughout the Orient, sitting was the official posture for kings and judges. — Upon his royal throne]. Instead of (malkhtitho) , his royal (lit. of his kingdom), some codd. read mHakhto, 'his work.' On this slight foundation flf1, 3F2, and Mid. construct the story that Xerxes could not sit upon the throne of Solomon, and therefore had to sit upon "the throne of his own workmanship." The insertion in 21 l is as follows: — \Ml + King Xerxes wished to sit upon the royal throne of Solomon, which had been carried away from Jerusalem by Shishak, King of Egypt; and had been brought away from Egypt by Sennacherib; and had been captured out of the hands of Sennacherib by Hezekiah, and had been brought to Jerusalem; but had again been carried away from Jerusalem by Pharaoh the Lame, King of Egypt; and from Egypt had been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar, and had been brought to Baby- lon. When Cyrus devastated the province of Babylon, he transported it to Elam; and afterward, when Xerxes reigned, he tried to sit upon it, but was not able. Accordingly, he sent and brought artisans from Alexandria in order that they might make one like it, but they were not able. So they made another inferior to it; and after two years had been spent in its production, at length he sat upon his royal throne which the artisans had made for him.] ®2 has a similar but much more elaborate addition describing the wisdom of Solomon, the construction of his throne, the visit of the Queen of Sheba, and Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jeru- salem. The legends here gathered are largely of Babylonian origin (cf. Wiinsche, "Salomo's Thron u. Hippodrom, Abbilder des babylonischen Himmelsbildes," Ex Oriente Lux, ii. (1906). — Which was in Susa], added to distinguish this throne from the others which were in Ecbatana, Persepolis, or Babylon. Susa (Heb. and As. Shushan, (& 'Zovaoi, Old Pers. Shushin or Shushim) 126 ESTHER is the modern mound of Shush, 15 mi. S.W. of Dizful in Persia. Its history is known from references in Bab. and As. inscriptions, from classical historians, and from the inscriptions and other re- mains discovered in the excavations recently undertaken on its site by the French government under the direction of Dieulafoy and De Morgan. — The fortress], so also Dn. 82 Ne. i1 Est. i5 23- 5 8 315 814 96 »• 12. This distinguishes the acropolis, in which the palace lay, from the less strongly fortified surrounding "city of Susa" (315b 611), which lay on the other side of the river Choaspes, the As. UknU. The excavations show that the main city had a circumference of 6 or 7 mi. At a height of 72 ft. above the general level lay the fortress, or citadel, a rectangular platform inclosed with a massive wall 2% mi. in length. This was the palace-quarter, in whose midst, at an elevation of 120 ft., stood the royal castle, or "house of the king" (i5 28 413 7s). The strength of this inner city is repeatedly affirmed by Gr. writers (cf. Strabo, xv. 32; Poly- bius, v. 48). 3. In the third year of his reign]. According to the Ptolemaic Canon (see Wachsmuth, Alte Geschichte, p. 305) Xerxes' first full regnal year began Dec. 23, 486 B.C. It thus coincides practically with 485 B.C. His third year must then have been 483 b.c. At the time of his accession Egypt was in revolt (Her. vii. 4); not under the leadership of Habisha, as has commonly been supposed (Birch, TSBA. i. p. 24; Petrie, History of Egypt, iii. p. 369; Erman, Zeitsch. f. Aegypt.,xxxi. p. 91); for, as Spiegelberg has lately shown (Papyrus Libbey, 1907), Habisha belonged to a time about 324 B.C. (see Or. Lit. Zeitung, 1907, cols. 422, 439). Egypt was reduced to submission in Xerxes' second year (484 B.C.), and was placed under the rule of his brother Achaemenes (Her. vii. 7). In the following year the action of the Book of Est. begins. Ac- cording to SI1, ©2 and Mid., Xerxes was obliged to wait until the third year because his throne was not yet ready. Mid. notes that this was the third year after the interruption of the building of the Temple (Ezr. 46). — He [QI1 + Xerxes] made a [Gr. codd. + great] banquet]. The word means primarily a drinking-bout. It occurs 20 times in Est. and only 24 times in all the rest of the OT. — To all his officials], not 'princes' (i.e., members of the royal family), XERXES' FEAST . 127 as AV. and RV. translate, but 'officers' appointed by the King; so L correctly rots ap^ovcn (cf. Buhl, Die socialen Verhaltnisse der Israeliten, p. 83^'.). — And courtiers]. The word means primarily 'slaves.' The 'slaves of the King' in OT. usage are not 'sub- jects' in general, as (8 translates here; nor are they those who do the menial work of the palace, but they are the members of the royal household, the courtiers, as we should say (cf. 32r- 411 511 1 K. 515 2023 223 2 K. 195 Je. 3624). — [With the officers of] the army of Persia and Media]. 3b is a circumstantial clause describing the nature of the feast, and specifying the classes of dignitaries included under the officials and courtiers of 3a. The army is unrelated grammatically to the preceding clause. At least and is needed before it. Even with this insertion it does not make good sense, for it is inconceivable that Xerxes should invite the whole army of Persia and Media along with the dignitaries of the realm. Bert., Kamp., Schu., Rys., Or., seek to explain the difficulty by taking army to mean the picked body-guard of 2,000 cavalry, 2,000 lancers, and 10,000 infantry described in Her. vii. 40/.); but, as Keil points out, the phrase force of Media and Persia can- not naturally be limited in this way. If this were the meaning, we should expect "force of the King." Keil holds that the army was present in its elite representatives, but in that case we should ex- pect "the mighty men of valour." It is necessary, therefore, with Jun. and Trem., Pise, Rys., Buhl, Haupt, to supply and the officers of before army (cf. 2 S. 24* 1 K. 1520 2 K. 25" Je. 4o7- 13, al.). The Medes and Persians were the principal subdivisions of the Iranian branch of the Indo-European race, and were closely akin in language, customs and religion to the Aryans of northern India. In the eighth century B.C., according to the As. records, they first began to push into the regions east of Assyria and Babylonia. By the sixth century their conquest of ancient Elam and the territory northward to the Caspian was complete, and a Medo-Persian empire was founded by Phraortes the Mede (647-625 3.C.). Under his successor Cyaxares (624-585 B.C.), Media was strong enough to destroy Nineveh and to divide the Assyrian empire with Nabopolassar of Babylon. Under Astyages (584-550 B.C.) Media declined, and Cyrus the Persian (549-530 B.C.) was able to seize 128 ESTHER the throne. Henceforth we have a Perso-Median instead of a Medo-Persian empire. Cyrus conquered Babylon (539 B.C.), and soon made himself master of the whole of western Asia. His son Cambyses (529-523 B.C.) added Egypt to the empire. Darius I (522-466 B.C.) did not enlarge his domain, but brought it into a splendid state of organization. His son and successor was Xerxes, the 'Ahashwerosh of Est. In this passage the Persians are named before the Medes, corresponding to the fact that at this time Persia held the hegemony in the double kingdom (so also i14 1!» 19 and in the Achaemenian inscriptions Parsa uta Mada). In Dn. 528 69<8>- 13<12>- 16 <15> 820 the order is reversed, because Daniel lived at the time of the Median hegemony. In Est. io2 the order Media and Persia is due, either to the use of a different source (see Intro- duction, § 24) or to the fact that chronicles are mentioned which naturally treated of the two kingdoms in chronological order. From these two orders in Est., Meg. 12a infers that there was a bargain between the two peoples, so that, when the kings were Medes, the satraps were Persians, and vice versa. — The nobles and the officials of the provinces before him] [Jos. 186 + as became a king]. The prov- inces are the conquered portions of the empire in contrast to the home-lands of Persia and Media that have just been mentioned. The comm. make many guesses as to the reason for this banquet. According to Meg. 11b, Xerxes perceived that Belshazzar had mis- calculated the 70 years of Je. 2910, and had brought ruin upon him- self by using the Temple vessels at his feast. Xerxes calculated more correctly, and found that the 70 years were up in his second year; therefore, in his third year he ventured to make a feast and to use the Temple vessels. 3F1 holds that it was to celebrate the quelling of a rebellion, or was an anniversary; so also L, aycov ra crcoTrjpLa avrov. (& and IE. think that it was because of his marriage to Vashti; Cler., that it was to conciliate the empire at the beginning of his reign; Sane, to initiate his residence at Susa; Mai., Scho., to celebrate his victory over the Egyptians; Lap., to observe his birthday {cf. Her. i. 133); Ser., to display his wealth (cf. i4). Jun., Mai., Keil, Hav., Baum., al. identify this banquet with the council which Xerxes convened when he was planning to invade Greece (Her. vii. 8), and quote the remark of Her. i. 133 XERXES' FEAST 1 29 that the Persians discuss the most important affairs of state over their cups (cf. Strabo, xv. 320; Curt. vii. 4; Xen. Cyrop. viii. 812). There is, however, no hint in Est. of deliberating over an impend- ing war. These speculations in regard to the reason for the feast are of interest only if one is convinced of the strictly historical character of the book. [Of1, 2J2 + Why did he make a feast ? Some say that his governors had revolted against him, and that he went and conquered them; and after he had conquered them he returned and made a feast. Another says, This was a feast-day for him, so he sent letters into all the provinces to come and celebrate it in his presence with joy. He sent and invited all governors of the provinces that they should come and rejoice with him. There assembled in his presence 127 princes from 127 provinces, all adorned with crowns on their heads, and they reclined on woollen couch-covers, and feasted, and rejoiced before the King. And while the princes and the governors of the provinces were before him, certain also of the rulers of Israel came thither, who wept and mourned because they saw the vessels of the house of the sanctuary. And they ate and drank and enjoyed themselves.] 4. While he showed [them] his glorious royal wealth], lit. the wealth of the glory of his kingdom. The wealth of the Persian court is celebrated by the classical writers. Her. iii. 95 /. speaks of 14,560 Eubceic talents (£3,549,000, or $17,248,140) as the annual tribute collected by Darius, and states that he was accus- tomed to melt the gold and pour it into earthen jars, then to break off the clay and store away the ingots. Her. vii. 27 speaks of a golden plane-tree and a golden vine that Darius received as a present from Pythius of Celaenae. In the spoil of Xerxes' camp the Spartans found tents covered with gold and silver, golden couches, bowls and cups, and even gold and silver kettles (Her. ix. 80 /.). ^Eschylus (Persa7, 161) speaks of the gold-covered chambers of the palace (cf Curt. iii. 13; v. 6; Athenaeus, xi. 14; other references in Baum., p. 16). The Targums and Midrash make the following additions: — [®l + It is not written that he showed his wealth, but, " While he showed his glorious royal wealth," that is, the wealth that had come from the sanctuary, for flesh and blood cannot possess wealth, but all wealth be- longs to the Holy One, blessed be He! as it is written, "Mine is the silver 9 130 ESTHER and mine the gold, saith the Lord of hosts." Every day he showed them six treasure-chambers, as it is written, "wealth, glory, kingdom, costliness, ornament, greatness," that is, six things. But when the Israelites saw there the vessels of the house of the sanctuary, they were not willing to remain before him; and they told the King, the Jews are not willing to remain because they see the vessels of the house of the sanctuary. Then the King commanded his servants to bring them other vessels.] [Mid. + He showed them his great household. ... He showed them his various revenues from the land of Israel. . . . He showed off with what belonged to him and with what did not belong to him, like the crow that struts on its own and on somebody else's ground. How did the wretch get so much wealth? R. Tanhuma said, the cursed Ne- buchadnezzar had brought all the wealth of the world together for him- self, and his eye feared for his wealth. When he saw that he was near death, he said: Shall I leave all this wealth to this fool Evil-Merodach ? He loaded it upon great copper ships and sunk them in the Euphrates. They were then disclosed by God to Cyrus when he gave command to rebuild the Temple, as it is written: "So saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, 'I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places'" (Is. 453)]. [QI1 -f- This was left in the hand of Xerxes by Cyrus the Mede, who had found this treasure. When he captured Babylon, he dug into the bank of the Euphrates, and found there 680 chests full of pure gold, diamonds, beryls, and emeralds. With these treasures then he displayed his wealth.] And the costliness of his kingly apparel], lit. the costliness of the ornament of his greatness. The language of this and of the pre- ceding clause is as redundant as the statements are exaggerated. — Many days [3F1 +and the feast for his officials lasted] 180 days]. Many days is an ace. of time that joins on to made a banquet 3a; 180 days is an appositive, defining more precisely what is meant by many days. The extraordinary length of this banquet, 180 days, or half a year, has aroused the wonder and the incredulity of comm. in all ages. Mid. absurdly suggests that many may be 3, and days may be 2, so that really there were only 5 days; and that they are called 180 because they seemed that long to the oppressed Jews. Scho. takes 180 as symbolic of the duration of the Messiah's king- dom. Bon., Sal., Cler., West., Eich., Baum., Scott, Raw., Stre., al., think that the governors could not have left their provinces for 180 days, and, therefore, were entertained by Xerxes in relays; XERXES' FEAST 131 but there is not the least foundation for this view in the text. Lyra, Keil and Winck. (AOF. iii. i, p. 31 n.) take v. * as a paren- thesis describing the events which preceded the feast, rather than those which occurred during its progress, and regard the 7 -day feast of v. 5 as the same as the one whose description is begun in v. 3a. This is not a natural interpretation, since while he showed them (v. 4) does not properly mean 'at the end of a 180 days' display.' Besides, if the nobles were present for 180 days look- ing at the treasures, no reason appears why the feast might not have lasted during that period. Moreover, all the people that were found in Susa (v. 5) is not the same as his officials and his courtiers (v. 3), which shows that the banquet of v. 6 is different from that of v. 3. In support of their identity, Keil urges that the officials and the courtiers of v. & are present at the feast of v. 5 (cf. v. u); but this is easily explained by the supposition that, although the multitude was invited, the nobles also remained to the second banquet. In fact, the peoples and the officials are named together in v. ". Keil's view also demands the arbitrary assumption of an anacoluthon at the beginning of v. 5 to resume the thought of v. 3. We must hold, therefore, with the majority of comm.,that the author means to say that there was a feast of 180 days, followed by another feast of 7 days. As to the probability of such a celebration, opinions differ. Ser. cites a 90-day debauch of Dionysius of Syracuse, and Fryar, Travels, p. 348, reports that he found feasts of six months' duration among the modern Persians; nevertheless 180 days re- mains an incredibly long time for the King and all the officials of the empire to spend in drinking. 1. i.-m] Kal i^T-qae 108a: om. 44 J: many of the historical books of the OT. begin with 1: thus Ex., 1 K., Ezr., with a simple 1 conjunctive; Lv., Nu., 2 K., 2 Ch., with 1 consecutive and the impf.; Jos., Ju., 1 S., 2 S., Ne., with tpi. In all these cases, the book is meant to be read in connection with the one that precedes it (so also possibly Ru. i1 and Ez. i1); here, however, such a connection is impossible. Meg. 10b, W, Mid. 1a, Yalqut Est. § 1044, claim that everywhere in Scripture Wl introduces a narrative of disaster. This conceit has its origin in the similar sound of Gr. oval, Latin vce, 'woe.' — ""DO] Kal itcpdrrjo-ep 108a: om. 44. — BT1HprH«»] Assueri 9: Artaxerxis fi: *■;•*■ -■) &: 'As L. — nrtyc] -\-grande 31 & 44, 74, 76, 120, 236. — Sri1-] so 936: om. (& L. — V"w] tois l\ois (&: rots dotXois 236: tois &pxovn we must supply "Htp. (£ /cai tcks Xourois represents an original "iNtf), which is a corruption of nan. — Dns] Dns some codd. incorrectly. — D^Dmon] kclI rots &pxov: /ecu ot dpxovres L. a^Dmsn is com- monly regarded as the Pers. word fratama, which is the equivalent of Skr. prathama and Gr. irpCbTos 'first.' It occurs elsewhere in the OT. only in 69 and Dn. i3 (cf. the glossary in Spiegel, Die altpers. Keilinschr., p. 232; Lagarde, Armenisdie Studien, §2289; Ges. Abhandlungen, p. 282/.). Haupt, Am. Journ. Phil., xvii. p. 490, proposes to connect it with As. parsumuti, 'elders' (Delitzsch, As. HWB. p. 546). Mid. and other comm. incorrectly regard O^mcn as the royal body-guard. RaShI and Kimhi know that it is Pers. and interpret it correctly. — ni^i] rCiv aaTpairCov (g: om. L. — mjncn] jLai^ao? &: om. 2 so ^as. (Baer): T2J var- G C (see Norzi, ad /oc): aft. VT?ru J. lp> is commonly used in Est. in the secondary sense of 'honour' (cf. i20 63- 6 816), but here the parallelism with *ie>j? in the preceding clause demands that it should be given its primary meaning of 'precious- ness.' — mssn], primarily 'beauty,' 'ornament,' is used of women's finery Is. 318, of garments Is. 521, of jewels Ez. i617- 39 2326, and of the apparel of the high priest Ex. 282- 40. Here it seems to refer to the regalia of the Persian monarch. On the basis of Ex. 282, Meg. 12a and Mid. infer that Xerxes put on the robes of the high priest that had been carried off by Nebuchadnezzar. — TnSru— "^ nxi] om. 44, 106. — >"nSnj] so many edd.: injrru Bl C Ba. G: om. L 52, 64, 243, 248, C, Aid. — oon D^c] om. (& L: Haupt regards as a gloss, or alternate reading, to the following. — D*J1D»] pr. iv B, pr. iirl n L N, 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 248, Aid., 55, 108a. — dndi] om. 70. XERXES ALSO MAKES ANOTHER BANQUET FOR THE MEN OF THE FORTRESS OF SUSA, AND VASHTI FOR THE WOMEN (i59). 5. And when these days were completed]. R. Samuel holds {Mid. ad. loc.) that the feast of 7 days whose description begins here, is included in the 180 days of the previous feast, i.e., after 173 days the common people were admitted to dine with the nobles; 136 ESTHER so also Jun., Drus., Pise, Mai. In defence of this view it is said that there is no description of the feast of 180 days unless v. 5 be included in it, that the nobles were present (v. "), and that all that were found in Susa were invited (v. 6), i.e., the nobles as well as the common people. On the other hand, Rab {Mid. ad loc.) and most comm.hold that the seven days followed the 180 days. — [®2 + The King said, Now I will make a banquet for the inhabitants of my city and] the King made a banquet during seven days]. Net. thinks that this was the wedding feast of Vashti, and compares it with the wedding feast of Esther (218). Cas. compares the seven-day feasts in the Shahnameh of Firdusi. — For all the people], i.e., for all the men. The women were invited to another banquet given by Vashti (v.9). — [S1 + of the house of Israel]. The addition is due to an ancient inference from the words all the people, that Jews must have been present at the banquet (cf. Meg. 12a). — That were found [2I1 + sinners] in Susa the fortress [2F1 + who were counted among the uncircumcised inhabitants of the land]. Were found is not the same as lived, but denotes those who at the time happened to be in the place, whether residents or visitors (cf. 1 Ch. 2917 2 Ch. 34" Ez. 8") ; that is, this second feast included not only those who had come up out of the provinces to the first feast, but also the rest of the men that were present in the palace-quarter known as "Susa the fortress" (see v. 2). — From the great to the small], i.e., not from the oldest unto the youngest, but from the highest unto the lowest ; both the nobles, who had been present at the previous banquet, and all the members of the royal household, who had not hitherto been included, were now invited. Ctesias (a poor authority) states that 15,000 guests were entertained by Artaxerxes Mnemon at a cost of 400 talents (Frag, xxxvii., ed. Lion). — In the enclosed garden of the King's palace]. Persian palaces stood usually in the midst of a Trapdheiaos f or 'park,' which was surrounded with a fortified wall (cf. Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, 11; EBi., Art. "Garden"). The phrase court of the garden indicates a court belonging to the garden, rather than a court that is used as a garden, because in v.6 it is paved with mosaic. Dieulafoy thinks of the mosaic-paved court in front of the palace at Susa. Under the name of the Memnonium the palace at Susa is fre- THE SECOND FEAST 137 quently mentioned by classical writers (cf. Her. v. 53/.; vii. 151; Strabo, xv. 32; Polyb. v. 48). The early explorers observed ex- tensive ruins of this edifice on the top of the mound of Susa, and copied there the trilingual inscription of Artaxerxes Mnemon, which reads: " Darius, my ancestor, built this palace (apaddna) in ancient times. In the reign of Artaxerxes, my grandfather, it was destroyed by fire. Through the favour of Ahura-Mazda, Anahita, and Mithra, I have restored this palace. May Ahura- Mazda, Anahita, and Mithra protect me" (Journ. of the Roy. Asiat. Soc, xv. p. 159; Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschr., p. 68/.; Bezold, Achamenideninschr ., p. 44/.; Oppert, Medes, 229-230; Records of the Past, vii. p. 79). In 1884-6 Dieulafoy excavated the ruins of this palace of Artaxerxes. The acropolis as a whole occupied a roughly rectangular space about 300 acres in area. This was divided into four quarters. In the S. W. corner was a fortified gate that was the main entrance (the "gate of the King" in Est.), and a large open space (the "outer court" of Est.). In the S. E. corner stood the royal residence (the "house of the King" in Est.). The N. E. corner was occupied by the harem (the "house of the women" in Est.) ; and the N. W. corner, by the apaddna, or throne- room, surrounded with an open space that may have been used as a garden. Dieulafoy thinks that the Mthan, or 'palace,' of this verse and 77f- is a Heb. adaptation of the Pers. word apaddna and refers to this throne-room. This is extremely doubtful (see critical note). The apaddna occupied a square space 250 feet on each side. Its roof of cedar-wood was supported by slender, fluted limestone columns with carved capitals, arranged in six rows of six columns each. The front was open. The rear and side walls were of brick, encrusted with mosaic of white and reddish gray cement, or with enamelled tiles. Each side was pierced with four doors. Flanking the main entrance were pylons, ornamented on one side with a line of lions on enamelled tiles, similar to those found at Khorsabad and at Babylon; and on the other side with a line of soldiers of the royal body-guard.* ♦See the works cited on p. 134, and Dieulafoy, " Le livre d'Esther et le Palais d'Assuerus," Rev. des Etudes Juives, xvi. (1888), Actes et Conferences, pp. cclxv. ff.\ translated by F. Os- good, Bibl. Sacra, lxvi. (1889), pp. 626-653; Mme. Jane Dieulafoy, Harper's Monthly, June, 1887; Jastrow, "The Palace of Artaxerxes Mnemon and the Book of Esther," Sunday- school Times, Nov. 17, 1888. 138 ESTHER [(& + planted by the royal care and hand.] [© l + Which was planted with trees bearing fruits and spices, overlaid for half their height with pure gold and set with inlays of precious stones, that yielded them shade. But the righteous Mordecai and his companions were not there.] [©2+He made arbours, and cut down spice-trees to make seats, and strewed precious stones and pearls before them, and set out shady trees.] [L -f- While he celebrated his deliverance.] [Jos, 87 + And the banquet was made for them in this manner.] 6. The description of the feast in v.6 is unconnected gram- matically with the foregoing. It begins abruptly with white stuff, without a predicate. The comm. generally regard the sentence as a series of exclamations, white stuff I cotton! purple! but this is very un-Hebraic. The subsequent descriptive clauses in vv.7 8 are introduced in the ordinary way with and, followed by a pred- icate. The Vrss. all insert at the beginning of the v. such words as "and awnings were stretched"; AV. and RV. supply "and there were hangings of"; Rys. and Sieg., "and there were." A com- parison of the Vrss. suggests that the original beginning of the v. may have been, "and the curtains were" (see critical note). — White cotton cloth]. The first word is written in M with a large initial letter, which is probably intended to call attention to a sus- pected omission before it (cf. De Wette-Schrader, Einl.8 p. 210; Ginsburg, Intr. pp. 334 ff.). Similar extraordinary letters occur in q9- 29. — [®l + With sapphire and green] and violet], i.e., blue purple, a colour extracted from a mollusk of* the Mediterranean, probably the Helix Ianthina (cf. HDB. i. 457; EBi. i. 875). Violet and white were the royal colours (cf. 818; Curt. vi. 64). — [L + And scarlet intertwined with flowers, and the tent was] caught up with cords of linen and red purple]. The idea is, that the cur- tains which served as awnings were suspended by means of these cords upon the framework set up to support them. So the Vrss., Keil, Wild., Schu., Sieg. On the other hand, Bert., Rys., Haupt, translate 'bound/ 'bordered,' instead of 'caught up.' — Upon rods of [(& Jos. + gold and] silver]. These rods formed a trellis to which the white and violet awnings were tied by the cords. The author has in mind the structure of the Tabernacle in Ex. 26-27, but there is no hint that he means this to be an allegory of the Messianic feast that God will make for his people (Scho.). — And [S1 + round THE SECOND FEAST 1 39 beams of silver placed upon] pillars of marble [& + and stone] [L + gilded] [®> + red, green, flame-colour, yellow, and white] [Jl + were gleaming]. The first addition of QT1 is an alternate translation of the preceding clause. The word pillars is the same that is used in Ex. 2632- 37 2710- ll- 17 36™- :s al. for the supports of the Tabernacle; in 1 K. 72- 3- 6, for the columns in Solomon's palace; and 1 K. 715, for the two bronze columns that stood before the Temple. The word for marble is the same that is used in the description of Solomon's Temple (1 Ch. 2o2). From this Mid. infers that these pillars were part of the spoil of the Temple carried off by Nebuchadnezzar. The columns in the ruins of the apaddna at Susa are of a dark-blue limestone that might easily be described as marble. In Mid. it is said that Xerxes' columns were of a bluish-black colour, and R. Mathna makes the curious remark that he had slept on the top of one of them, and that it was broad enough for him to lie at full length. This seems to indicate that the ruins of Susa were known to the Babylonian rabbis. Benja- min of Tudela, a Spanish Jew, visited Susa in the twelfth century and speaks of the ruins of Xerxes' palace (ed. Asher, 1840, i. p. 117). [S1 + He made them lie upon] beds of[(&1 + fine woollen stuffs, which were spread upon bedsteads whose heads were of] gold and [®l + their feet of] silver [Jos.187 + so that many tens of thou- sands could recline]. The clause is without conjunction or predi- cate in the same manner as 6a, and the Vrss. all find it necessary to supply something. Probably we should read, and the beds were gold and silver, after the analogy of the descriptive clauses that follow in vv.7- 8. Haupt supplies the prep. on. The word bed is ambiguous in Heb., as in Eng. It may mean either the mattress, or the frame which supports it. Ordinarily it means only the rug, or mat, which the peasant spreads upon the ground ; but in Am. 6* 'beds of ivory' must mean 'bedsteads.' In this case Keil, Rys., Sieg., think of cushions covered with cloth of gold and cloth of silver. It seems more natural, however, with Meg. 12a, ST1, and Mid., to think of frames of gold and silver on which the cushions were laid. Her. ix. 82 speaks of couches and tables of gold and silver that the Greeks captured from the Persians (cf. Plutarch, 140 ESTHER Vit. Alex. 37). Reclining at table was not the custom of the ancient Hebrews, but in the time of Amos it began to come in from the East (Am. 64). In later days it was the universal practice of the Jews. Classical references show that Est. is correct in ascribing this custom to the Persians. — [J 0 2F1 + placed] upon a mosaic pavement of porphyry and marble, and mother-of-pearl, and dark marble [(£ + and transparent coverings gayry decorated with roses strewn in a circle]. On marble, cf. 6a. The other names of materials occur only here and are of very doubtful meaning. We are to think of four kinds of stone of different colours that were set in ornamental patterns. Such pavements were greatly admired in the ancient Orient, and have been found in the excavations in Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia. The versions presuppose a different text (see note). 7. [SI1 + And he commanded] and drink ivas brought [3 + for those who were present] in vessels of gold [<& ®2 + and silver] [Jos.188 + adorned with precious stones for pleasure and for display] [SF1 + from the House of the Sanctuary, which wicked Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem;] [®2 + and he who drank out of a cup did not drink again out of the same cup, but they took that one away from him and brought him another ;] [(& + and a ruby beaker was displayed at a cost of 30,- 000 talents]. Golden drinking-vessels are mentioned among the spoil taken from the Persians by the Greeks (Her. ix. 80, 82). Xen. Cyrop. viii. 8, 18, says that the Persians prided themselves on the number of their drinking-vessels (cf Athen. xi. 465 ; Strabo, xv. 3, 19). According to Mid., the vessels were of crystal as costly as gold. It is curious that in this description no mention is made of food as well as of drink. The additions of the versions are all imaginary embellishments that have no text-critical value. — And the vessels [Jl + for food] were different from one another. [2I1 + And the other vessels of King Xerxes himself which were there, were changed in their appearance to the likeness of lead, and in the presence of the vessels of the Sanctuary they were transformed;] [Meg. 12a -\- and a voice was heard from Heaven, saying, The former kings perished on account of their use of the Temple-vessels, and you follow their example.] THE SECOND EEAST 141 The idea of the Heb. is, that no two drinking-cups were alike, an extraordinary evidence of the wealth of the King. (£', ©2, and Mid. take the expression vessels differed from vessels in the sense that the Temple-vessels differed from the other vessels, and so develop the extraordinary idea that Xerxes' cups were turned to lead. Meg. takes the verb in the sense of 'repeating' instead of 'differing,' and so gains the notion that Xerxes was 'repeating' the sin of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn. 52- 30). — [2T1 +And they drank] royal wine [SI1 + of surpassing aroma, and most pleasant taste,] [(& ®l + and sweet,] [IE1 + not scanty, but] abundant, with royal liberality [(F2 + and the wine was older than each one that drank of it, for the cup-bearer asked each man, How old art thou ? and if he said I am 40 years old, he gave him wine that was 40 years old, and so with every one]. By wine of kingdom the versions and comm. generally understand such wine as the King himself drank. The older comm. think of the Chalybonian wine that the Persian kings are said to have drunk, and compare Ez. 2718; Plutarch, Alexander. — According to the hand of the King]. (& iC L understand this to mean such wine as came to the King's hand; Mont., according to the ability of the King; Tig., according to the royal command; Pag., Vat., Pise, Jun., and Trem., and most modern comm., according to the generosity of the King, i.e., with royal liberality (cf. 218 1 K. io13 Ne. 28). J translates correctly, ut magnificentia regia dignum erat. 8. And the drinking was according to the law. There was no one to compel [Jos. + by bringing wine to them continually, as is the custom of the Persians.] [QI2 + At the feasts of the Persians they used to bring to each one a great cup that held four of five hemince (that is what is called a pithqa), and they made every man drink it down at one draught, and they did not let him go until he had finished it in one draught. So the cup-bearer who served the Persians became an exceedingly rich man; because, when he brought the cup to a man and he was not able to drink it, he winked to the cup-bearer to take the cup away from him, and paid him a sum of money because he was not able to drink it. But now Xerxes was not willing that they should drink out of such cups.] The two clauses seem to be contradictory. One says that the 142 ESTHER drinking was regulated by law ; the other, that there was no con- straint. Meg. 12a solves the difficulty by supposing that accord- ing to the law means according to the Law of Moses, in which the altar receives more food than drink. S1 thinks that it means according to the habit of each man; Mid., according to the custom of each nation; Cler., according to judgment, i.e., moderately. Most comm. interpret it as meaning according to the special rule made for this feast. Ordinarily the guests drank together at a word of command from a toast-master, but now they were allowed to drink as they pleased. This interpretation can hardly be regarded as satisfactory. In the place of these two clauses (£ has, and the drinking took place according to no prescribed law, which suggests that law should be pointed as a construct without the article ; and that we should translate, and the drinking was according to the law of no compeller, i.e., was unrestrained. — For so the King [(& + willed and] had enjoined upon every officer of his house [Jos. + to permit them to enjoy themselves and] to do according to [(& + his wish and according to] the wish of every man [5F1 + that was an Israelite, and according to the wish of the men of every kindred and tongue.] [Meg. 12a + And every man received the wine of his own province.] [Jos.189 + And sending messengers through the provinces he commanded that they should have a release from their labours, and should feast on account of his kingdom many days.] The idea of the passage as a whole is, that there was neither any compulsion to drink, nor any restraint from drinking: every man was free to do as he pleased, and the servants were required to execute his orders. This verse concludes the description of Xerxes' feast for all the people of Susa the fortress. Its splendour was so great that one wonders what more could have been done for the nobles at the previous banquet. Persian feasts were proverbial in antiquity for their magnificence (cf. Her. i. 126; Athen. xii. 512; Horace, Odes, i. 38). 9. Also Vashti the [5Il + wicked] Queen, [Meg. 10b + the grand- daughter of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar who had burnt the house of God,] had made a [L iC & 4- great] feast [L # + for all] the women in [S1 + the place of the bedroom of] the royal house that belonged to King Xerxes [Meg. 1 2a + for she wished to sin as well THE SECOND FEAST 143 as Xerxes, as the proverb says, The man reads and his wife holds the light.] [3I2 + She gave them dark wine to drink, and seated them within the palace, while she showed them the wealth of the King. And they asked her, How does the King sleep, and she told them everything that the women wished to know. She showed them the King's bedroom, and how he ate, and how he drank, and how he slept.] [QI1 + But the righteous Mordecai prayed before the Lord from the first day of the feast unto the seventh day, which was the Sabbath.] For the different theories in regard to the identity of Vashti, see p. 88. A separate feast for the women was not demanded by Persian custom (see v.12). We must suppose, either that the author has wrongly ascribed a Jewish custom to the Persians, or that he thinks that the number of the guests necessitated dividing them into two companies. The house of the kingdom, where the women were feasted, is evidently different from the bithdn, or palace, where the men were assembled. Whether it is also to be distinguished from the house of the King and from the house of the women, as Dieulafoy thinks, is not clear (cf 216 51). 5. pmtaaVJ mtfSi^ Q: om. 19 1C. The spelling in M is simply a mistake that is corrected by Q (cf. Baer, p. 71). — rwfal shows a transi- tion from *"*? to n"1? forms, that is common in late Heb. (cf. Stade, Heb. Gram. § 201 b A; Siegfried, Neulieb. Gram. § 98 c, 105). niNSna does not mean 'in the fulfilling,' and so does not refer to a time within the 180 days; but means 'in the being full,' i.e., in the time when the 180 days were over (cf. Lv. 126). It is thus practically synonymous with ™nSd:> 'at the fulfilment' (2 K. 4* Je. 2511 Ez. 52). (& translates correctly 8re 8t aveirX-qpdjd'qaav al rjfityai. The 7-day feast follows the 180 days, at the same time the nobles are supposed to remain for this feast also. — D'DVl] om. 19 H. — hSnh] &s L: tov yd/xov (j& (irbrov A n c. a mg> g^b under — : -f- aiirov 93ft) : om. C : convivii 3. — iSnn] om. HI 44, 106. — h^h] om. C — oj?n] om. LJj. — D^NXDjn] the word is regularly so pointed as if from a n"1? root, except in Ezr. 825, where it is in pause. On the form cf. Maur. on Jos. io17. The pi. is used because the preceding word is collective (cf. Kautzsch, § 145 c, /S). — {SOtto] efs (& (iv 44, 93&, 106): mon] Thebari H: om. 3. — jCOp-VnJD1? om. (&: to end of v., om. U. — ny^tr] ii- (&. nncto is pointed as an absolute; d>d> njntf, accordingly, must be taken as an ace. of time, (& correctly i-rcl ijfxtpas. Haupt points as a cstr. : nsoa 'interior,' (E1: found only in Est. It is commonly supposed to be a derivative from no, 'house,' by appending the ending JT (cf. Stade, Heb. Gram. § 294 ft). Zimmern, KAT.3 p. 649, regards it as a loan-word from As. bitdnu, 'palace' (cf. Delitzsch, HWB. p. 172; Haupt, ad loc). po is not very similar in sound to Pers. apaddna, and to regard it as derived from the latter is unnatural, inasmuch as apaddna is already represented by Heb. HSN (Dn. 1145). Cheyne (EBi. 4500) proposes to read >;m instead of jrnj, and to translate 'in the royal pistachio-nut orchard.' — "J^on] quod regio cultu et manu consitum erat 3: + &yu)P ra crur^pia avrov. fjv dt ii-effTpuifitva L: + KeK0 ££: om. 44, 106: KapTraaivois (6: i.e., 'cotton,' is the Skr. word karpdsa. It is found in Pers., Ar., and Aram., and appears in Gr. as K&pira, 'fine linen.' Meg. 12a renders 'covers of coloured stuffs.' The word should be pointed Dsns. — nVani] om. ($: kclI vaiclvdiva + icai k6kklvcl ip.ireirXeyp.e'va. iv &vde3, Ar. bdda, 'to be white'; according to others, from Egypt, hbos, 'clothe.' It denotes properly 'fine linen,' such as was made in Egypt, but is often confused with Ds-)3 'cotton cloth' (cf. BDB. s. v.). Haupt regards the word as a gloss to Dms, that originally stood immediately after Dona. — jdjini] id. &3J1: ko.1 iropt3# is regularly trans- lated. This suggests that it read here D">t3iP hidjj. This reading is adopted by Canney (EBi. 2936), but ffl. is supported by the weight of evidence. The word appears also as the name of a kind of stone in Aram., Syr., and ph. in As. sassu (see BDB. 1010). According to the last-cited work it means 'alabaster.' — jThsd] pr. nal L 3 &. — IMYj om. L: + .v*g &. — nsxn] noxp. Ben Asher: nasi. Ben Naphtali (Buhl): \idb L: pavimentum stratum 3: lapides H: tt>"OD vtOD 'a trodden stoa,' S1. The root, which appears in As. rasapu, Ar. rasafa, means 'to join together.' nsx-i is a pavement composed of small pieces of stone. It is used of the pavement in Solomon's temple, 2 Ch. 73, and in Ezekiel's temple, Ez. 4017f. — ana] om. H &: afxapaydlrov \ldov (g, i.e., a stone like the emerald in colour, perhaps 'malachite,' 'serpentine,' or ' verd-antique ' : fffmpdySov L: smaragdino 3: pji'jBDnp 'crystals,' 2I1. In Ar. baht means 'alabaster' (Dozy, Suppl. i. p. 121). In Egypt, behet means ph. 'porphyry' (Brugsch, Diet. v. 438; Wendel, Altag. Bau-u. Edelsteine, p. 77/.; BDB. p. 96). The word occurs only here, and its meaning is quite doubtful. — tPtri] om. L 71, 106: tr. w. next (&: see above. — -ni] ical invvlvov, 'and of pearl,' 'imagery,' 'pictures.' In Is. 216 31 renders this word quod visu pulchrum est. (& has icai a-TpQ/xvat dia- r)$vs. — 3^1] so Mas. on 2 Ch. 28s {cf. Dn. n3): cf. Stade, § 193 b, n. 2: om. L: + «al ijdvs L: Vasthi 21 31 (so subsequently in all these recensions). — nna>>'] pf., instead of impf. w. l consec, because antecedent in time {cf. 25- 1041). — no] pr. iv (SL1C&: 2 has accidentally fallen out of the text (cf. i22 51 94). — moVm] /3acrt\etots (g: roO jSactX^ws L. — -jStdS I^n] om. L H: d'Trou 6 paaiKeiis (g: Haupt deletes. — STWW] om. L: Haupt deletes. XERXES COMMANDS VASHTI TO SHOW HERSELF TO THE GUESTS, BUT SHE REFUSES TO COME (i10'12). 10. [L + And it came to pass] on the seventh day, pE1 + which was the Sabbath, his cry and the cry of the Sanhedrin came before the Lord, and] when the King's mood grew merry from wine, [3 + and when, after too deep drinking, the wine-bibber became heated,] [®J + the Lord sent unto him a disturbing angel to trouble their feast.] [2J2_|_ When also the 127 kings wearing crowns who were with him grew merry, and the conversation turned to improper subjects, a violent dispute arose among them.] [Meg. 1 2b + Some said, The Median women are the most beautiful; others said, The Persian women are the fairest. Then said Xerxes to them, The wife that I enjoy is neither a Mede nor a Persian, but is a Chaldean. If you wish, you may see her. Yes, they said, but she must appear naked, for with what measure one metes, it shall be measured to him again. The shameless Vashti had taken Israelitish maidens and stripped them naked, and had made them work on the Sabbath (similarly os/ nimiam potationem incalu- isset mero 31. — CDnDn njftlP] om. L. — D^mwsn] om. 52, 64, 243, 248, C, Aid. — »JB pn] om. dlL: rots wpvTois 71. — V>on] e/ws 3f: avrou L 44, 106. — rnvynw] om. 3LN 44, 55, 74, 76, 106, 108a, 120, 236: Haupt deletes. 11. »n>n Pn] om. (£2j. — moSc-'OoS] 7rv>ds avrbv, fiavCkeveiv avrrjv /ecu wepideivai avrrj to 5id8-qp.a tffi: ets to e2I. — itrs] om. L: + mandaverat 31: + M »^S «. a, &. — QtDnDn 10] fierd rcDv eupotfxwi' ($>: c«m eis H: om. 44, 106: + ws 5£ ijKovcrev 6 f3acri\evs 6tl rjKvpbxrev Ovao'Tiu tt\v (3ov\t]v avrov L. — l^n] om. L. — ins] om. (&. XERXES TAKES COUNSEL WITH HIS MINISTERS WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE TO VASHTI (i1315). 13. And [Jos. + standing up] the King said to [L + all] the wise men [f$ + the discerning] [QJ1 + the sons of Issachar (cf 1 Ch. 1232)] who knew the times [Meg. 12b, QT1 + and the seasons in the Book of the Law and in the calculation of the world]. This did not take place at the feast, apparently, but on another occasion, as the officers and the people are not mentioned in this connection. There is no reason, therefore, to regard the following deliberation and decree as the acts of drunken men. Only one class of coun- sellors is mentioned here, for knowers of the times is in apposition with wise men. By knowers of the times, Meg., SI1, 3T2, Mid., and most comm. understand astrologers (cf. Is. 44" 4710-15 Je. 5035 Dn. 2" 515); but the next clause equates them with knowers of law and justice; they must, therefore, be those who are familiar with historical precedents that have the value of law (so Vit., 152 ESTHER Pag., Drus., Pise, Osi., Ramb., Patr.; cf. 2 Ch. 1232). In a case of this sort no reason appears why astrologers should be called in. — For so was the King's procedure [3F1 + wont to be discussed] before all [(F1 -f the wise men and] those who knew law and custom]. The addition of GF1 gives the true sense. The trans- lation of AV. and RV. for so was the King's manner toward all is incorrect. On dath, 'law,' see v.8. [Meg. 1 26 + Then they considered what they ought to say, saying, If we say, Let her be put to death; to-morrow, when the King is sober, he may become reconciled to her and put us to death: if we say, She is innocent, that will be an insult to the King. So they said to him, Since the Sanctuary has been destroyed and we have been exiled out of our land, we are no longer allowed to pronounce sentences of life or death. Go to Ammon and Moab, which have remained in their places like wine upon its lees. [2Il + And the sons of Issachar prayed before the Lord and spoke thus: O Lord of the world, confound their feast, and be mindful of the righteous who offered before thee in the House of thy Sanctuary lambs of a year old, two young pigeons, and turtle-doves upon an altar of earth, by the hand of the high priest, clad with the breast-plate, in which was the chrysolite, while the crowds of priests sprinkled and mingled the blood and arranged the shew-bread before thee. So the King turned and sought again advice from his princes.] This addition of OI1 is a series of plays upon the names of the seven counsellors based upon Meg. 12b. Vv. 13b-14 form a paren- thetical explanation inserted between 13a and 15. 14. And those who were [J -f- first and] near to him [®2 -f in counsel, some from afar and some from near by] were [®l + named] Karshena [QI2 -f- from Africa], Shethar [3F2 + from India], Adhmatha [®2 + from Edom], Tarshish [®2 + from Egypt], Meres [©2 + from Meres], Marsena, Memukhan [2F2 + from Jerusalem]. This clause is not to be connected with the fore- going, so as to read, those who knew law and custom and were near unto him (SI1)? f°r m tnat case tne acU- would be pi., since it would follow the noun with which it agrees; nor is it to be trans- lated the King said to the wise men and to those near to him (&), for in that case the preposition to would be repeated. This clause must be taken as an independent sentence, And the near to him were. The predicate is singular because it precedes its subjects THE COUNCIL CONCERNING VASHTI 153 (Miiller, Syntax, § 133; see note). These near ones belong to the class of the wise, because they answer the question just put to them. This is a further evidence that the wise are not astrol- ogers. The author's idea is, that out of the class of the wise men seven enjoyed a special proximity to the King. Near does not refer to relationship or to rank, but, as the following words show, to physical propinquity. On the names of these viziers, see p. 68. In BT., QJl, Mid., these names receive a host of allegorical ex- planations.— The seven viziers of Persia and Media]. The state- ment that there were seven is confirmed by Ezr. 714; Her. iii. 31, 84, 118; Xen. Anab. i. 64; Jos. Ant. xi. 31. According to these passages seven chief judges held offices for life and decided all questions that affected the conduct of the King. On Persia and Media, see v. 3. — Who continually beheld the face of the King], i.e., who were intimately associated with him (cf 2 S. i424- 32 Mt. 1810). According to Her., these seven chief nobles had access to the King at all times, except when he was in the company of one of his wives. — Who sat next to the royal throne], lit., who sat first in the kingdom. Their thrones were probably set in the same relation to that of Xerxes as those of the Amesha-Spentas to that of Ahura-Mazda, namely, three on each side and one in front of the King. (U1 paraphrases correctly, 'in the first row of the thrones of the kingdom.' 15. [Jos.192 + And he accused his wife, and told how he had been insulted by her, and how, although she had been summoned many times by him to the banquet, she had not once obeyed. Then he commanded that some one should state] according to law, what was to be done with Queen Vashti], a resumption of the thought of 13» that has been interrupted by the parenthesis 13b-14. The words according to law are placed first for emphasis. Haupt, against the testimony of (S 21 #, joins according to law to the end of the preceding v. The art. is omitted because no particular law is meant. On law, see i8. Because she did not execute the order of King Xerxes [(E1 & + which he sent] by the eunuchs], a recapitulation of the offence already described in vv.10-12. Noth- ing could be more improbable than that a despot like Xerxes should seek the advice of his wise men before dealing with a 154 ESTHER refractory wife. Judging from Herodotus' narratives, he would have made quick work with her. 13. lSnn] om. jdS] semper ei aderant Ml et dixit rex H: iroi-quaTe oOv 0f>. — *?aj e/ illorum faciebat cuncta consilio'&'.Trepl(&: omnibus L. — »pv] toiStou (j£: principibus ?G. — pil m] j^ov Kal Kplffiv (&~L: leges ac jura majorum 31: \l^io [wiVfli #. m is an edict promulgated by the King, pi is cus- tomary law. On the etymology of the two words see Haupt, a. I. According to Sieg., p-n is an explanatory gloss upon the preceding Pers. word m. 14. 3ipm] pr. |J^kO &: Kal irpoo-rjXdep (6ov) (g L: Sieg. emends to 3*3^31 (cf. I K- 5*7); Haupt, to 3Tg«ty — npac] om. &<&3jL. — »m] tr. with D*38^n ££: oi iyytis (&: Kal ol op&vres L: qui proximi C — D*38^n] pr. Kal L. — rwN-i] j^^S &: om. L 2j. The f. of the adj. is used as an adv., usually with a prep., but also without prep., Gn. 38" 1 K. 1825 Je. 1618 Lv. 58 Nu. 29 Jos. 21'°, in the sense of 'first in time,' here and Gn. t,32 in the sense of 'first in place.' — ni:^^] post eum J: ry pa: + dicto erww/ L. — D"-DnDn to] om. L. THE ADVICE OF THE MINISTERS (1 >«-««) 16. 77w» spoke Memtikhan before the King and the viziers [44, 106 + and the King's officers]. [Meg. 1 2b, S1 -f- He was Haman the descendant of the wicked Agag.] [21 2 + He was Daniel. And why was he called Memukhan ? Because, when the tribe of the house of Judah was carried captive to Babylon, there were carried captive with them Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; and Daniel also was among the exiles, and signs and wonders were wrought by his hands. Also by means of Daniel it was decreed from on high that Queen Vashti should be slain; therefore his name was called Memukhan ('appointed'). This was the decree of the King in the council, that the younger nobles should give their advice first; and if the advice was good, they followed it; and if it was not good, they followed the advice of the seniors. Now, since Memukhan was the youngest of all, he gave his advice first before the King. Memukhan had married a rich Persian wife, and she was not willing to speak with THE ADVICE OF THE MINISTERS 1 55 him except in her language, so Memukhan said within himself, Now the opportunity has come to compel the women to honour their hus- bands.] From the fact that Memukhan is named last in v. u, Meg. 12b and Mid. infer that he was the lowest in rank and thrust himself forward on this occasion. &-, in the passage just cited, thinks that he was the youngest. Others suppose that he appeared as the spokesman of the council after deliberation with the rest. — [L + Saying,] Not against the King only lias Queen Vashti sinned, but against all the officials and all the peoples in all the King's provinces]. The charge is twofold, that Vashti has wronged the King, and that she has set a dangerous example. The second charge is amplified in w. 17-18. The wily Memukhan insinuates that in punishing Vashti the King will not be gratifying a private grudge, but will be consulting public welfare. On officials, see i3. Peoples is in contrast to officials; the lower as well as the upper classes are wronged {cf. v. "). The pi. is used on account of the number of races in Xerxes' empire. Provhtces of the King is the usual formula in Est. (2s 3s provinces of the kingdom). By these are meant the 127 provinces of i1. 17. For the conduct of the Queen will become known to all the women]. The nobles of the provinces from India to Ethiopia will go home after the feast, and will tell how Vashti refused to obey her husband, so that the scandal will soon become known to all women of the empire. Conduct, lit. word, matter {cf. i13 920). — With the result of making them [f& + scorn and] despise their hus- bands,] [Jos.193 + and lead them a wretched life,] [(E2 + saying to them, Art thou more honourable than King Xerxes?] Lit. the phrase means, unto causing to despise their husbands in their eyes. Ba'al, 'owner,' 'lord,' is here used for 'husband' as in Gn. 203 Dt. 244 Ho. 216 and often. — While they say [l^+each to the other, Verily] King Xerxes commanded to bring Queen Vashti before him, but she did not cornel] The idea, which the Targums seek to make more clear, is that wives throughout the empire will say, The Queen did not obey, therefore we need not obey. 18. And this very day]. Prompt action is necessary, since the trouble is likely to begin at once among the women in Susa. — The 156 ESTHER ladies of Persia and Media, who have heard of the conduct of [3F1 + Vashti] the Queen [Jos.194 + toward thee who rulest over all]. Verse I7 spoke of women in general throughout the empire, this v. speaks of women of the aristocracy. They were in Susa with their husbands, and were present at Vashti's feast (v.9), so that they would be corrupted at once by her example. On Persia and Media, see 1 3. — Will say [(E1 + that they may do thus to their hus- bands, and will take counsel to do thus] to all the King's officials.] Say has no object. Most comm. follow (E1 and 2F2 in supplying one from the preceding v., and translate, will say the like, AV. and RV. ; or will tell it {i.e., the conduct of the Queen), Keil, Oet., Kau., Sieg., Schu. and others go back to while they say (17b), and regard the clause which there follows as the object of say in this v. j$, Bert., Rys., find the object in the next clause, and translate, will speak — and that in abundance — scorn and indigna- tion. All these constructions are unnatural, and one must suspect corruption of the text. Instead of say (& has will dare similarly to dishonour; U, will neglect and treat with contumely; J, will make light of. With the omission of a single letter the v. reads, will rebel against all the King's officials (see note). — Then there will be enough contempt and wrath [&1 + and who will be able to bear it]. If the text be sound, enough is ironical; Memukhan means, far too much. Contempt, i.e., -on the part of wives toward their husbands; wrath, i.e., on the part of husbands toward their wives. Instead of enough, Haupt, by a slight textual emendation reads whenever, and translates, whenever there is contempt then there is wrath. This greatly improves the sense. This absurd advice, that the example of Vashti is politically dangerous, can hardly be taken as sober history. [Jos. 194 -f And he exhorted him to punish her who had so insulted him, with a great punishment.] [®2 + But, when Memukhan had given this opinion, he feared for his life, and said: Perhaps the King will not carry out this advice; and when Vashti comes to hear of this advice which I have given against her, she will judge me harshly, if I do not secure that King Xerxes says that Vashti shall not come before him, and cause him to swear an oath which the Persians are afraid to break. Therefore Memukhan said,] THE ADVICE OF THE MINISTERS 1 57 19. If it seems good to the King [L 21 4- and agreeable to his mind,] [Mid. + my lord the King needs but to speak the word and I will bring her head in a dish.] This is the regular formula for making a proposition to the King {cf. y 54- 8 73' 9 8s 913 Ne- 2°)- After the exposition of the nature of Vashti's offence in vv. 16-18, Memukhan is now ready to say what ought to be done with her. — Let a royal edict go forth from him, and let it be written [®2 + and the oath] among the laws of Persia and Media that it may not be repealed]. Cf. i3- 8. As ®2 rightly perceives, the motive in making Vashti's deposal irrevocable is to escape the consequences that will ensue if she returns to power. The idea that the laws of the Medo-Persian empire could not be changed, appears again in 88 and Dn. 69- 13, but is not attested by any early evidence. It is ex- tremely improbable that such a custom existed. — That Vashti [# -(- the Queen] (the omission of Queen after Vashti's name in 1% is intentional) may not come [3^01 + again] before King Xerxes [S1 + and if she comes before the King, let the King decree that her head be cut off.] This is the law that the King is advised to enact. Thus, as ©2 emphasizes, Memukhan secures that Vashti may have no chance to reinstate herself in the King's favour and then to avenge herself on her enemies. — And her place as Queen let the King give to another who is better than she.] This is not part of the law, but a suggestion that makes its en- actment easier. The King will readily find another woman to take Vashti's place. Place as Queen, lit. kingdom, or royalty, is in an emphatic position. Another, lit. fellow, or companion, is not necessarily one of the palace-women, ior fellow, whether male or female, is used in the widest way of any person who belongs in the same category with another (cf. 1 S. 1528, " Yahweh hath given the kingdom to thy fellow," i.e., to another person; also Ex. n2 1 S. 2817). Better may mean either more beautiful, or more virtuous. From the context it must mean here more obedient. 20. And when the King's decree which he makes shall be heard in all his kingdom]. Having suggested how Vashti may be pun- ished for her offence against the King and the nation, Memukhan now proceeds to show how the effect of her bad example may be counteracted by making her punishment as widely known as her 158 ESTHER disobedience. In all his kingdom is more naturally connected with heard than with makes. — Though it be great], i.e., the king- dom, not the decree, as 5^ takes it, for decree is m. and great is f. (cf. Albrecht, ZATW. xvi. (1896), p. 115). This flattering par- enthetical remark serves no other purpose than to expand the idea already expressed in all. — Then all the women from great to small will give [L (E1 + reverence and] honour to their husbands.] Xerxes' empire is so great that it includes practically all the women. From great to small means here, as in v. 5, from high to low, both the ladies and the common women (cf. i17f); so Vrss., Schu., Sieg., Haupt. Other comm. translate less correctly from old to young. With this v. Memukhan's speech ends. The comm. indulge in much speculation as to the reason for the se- verity of his advice. ®2, in the passage previously quoted, says that he had had trouble with his own wife, and wished to discipline her by this indirect method. Mid. thinks that he had a personal grudge against Vashti ; either she had struck him in the face with a shoe-lace, because it says, "Not against the King alone hath Vashti sinned"; or she had not invited his wife to her feast, be- cause it says, "The conduct of the Queen will become known to all the women"; or he thought that he could get his own daughter made Queen, because it says, "Let the King give her place as Queen to another." Others think that the viziers as a body were jealous of Vashti's influence; so Cas., who gives numerous instances of the way in which Turkish viziers have intrigued against favour- ites. Most comm. suppose that Memukhan advised what he knew Xerxes wished to hear, and compare the servility of Cambyses' counsellors, Her. iii. 31. There is much discussion among the older comm. as to whether Xerxes was justified in putting Vashti away on this occasion. The arguments on both sides may be found in Par. ad loc. 16. iScn] avrbv L:-f- >Cg_oo &. — ons^ni] -f- Kal roi/s Tjyovp.4vovs rod /ScKTtX&ds 44, 106: Kal TrdvTas roi/s Apxovras 64: ical irpds toi>$ tipxovras 248, C, Aid.: \4ywv L. — roS] om. 64. — nniy] /;wn #: ^Tlfmaev A. This is a denom. from f*v 'sin,' found only in Aram, and late Heb. Construed with hy &.\. — tiko] om. 44, 106. — So] om. LC — d>djh "td Sp] Kal rods Tjyovfi^vovs (&: Tlepiruv Kal MtJ5uj> L: om. 44, 106: et gentes C THE ADVICE OF THE MINISTERS 1 59 — rnj*ttS-"¥MtJom. L6C — "l1^3] om. n. — lynicnN] om. LCS: Haupt deletes. 17. *3] mBQ &: kolI yap ] + J^J_J &.— n;tan w] ^ adtKla avrrjs L: eo contumelia regis %. — D^jn ?3 ?jr] 4" u | >* l» ^■QfllJ 0: avTofc <£» : eis Trdj'ras robs \aoi>s L: etiam ab omnibus mulieribus C: instead of if Haupt reads ha, but the two are often confused in late Heb. — vjoV-mnnS] om. <&L. — rmanS] ^cnco &: quod contemnat U: Hiph. inf. cstr., d.X. — Dncxa] the m. suf. is used because men and women alike will say this. Even if the suffix referred to the women alone, the m. form would be possible. — iSon] regina H. — vjcS-cmtPriN] om. 31. — cmwrm] Haupt deletes. — NnnS] inf. cstr. w. *? after ids, as in 6l, frequent in late Heb., but also 1 S. 2411. — rwa n^i] /cat Cos dureltrev t$ (3a did] so N 55, 936, 249 nc- a: M^8u)v kcli TLepatJovfe. — liajn nSi]c/ rfe malitia Vasthi regina quomodo abusa sit te C. — "M^i?''] in the sense of 'pass away,' 'cease to exist,' as in 9" f- (BDB. 718 §6). In the parallel passage, Dn. 6 9, the Aram, equivalent is N-iy. — Nisn nS i^n] pr. ^©Zc &: ^M etVeX- l6o ESTHER 66.TU) in (§: ^derrjKvta L: quoniam 11011 introiit H. — »r*n] 4- j?\ »Vv^ &: $ /SaciXiVo-a (g: om. 31. — ii'mtrriN-^oV] so A, 936 under *, H: trpbs avrbv (&: tov \6yov tov j8acri\&«js L: Haupt deletes l^nwnN. — hjdd] et meliori & 20. lm^D — j?Dtt>jV] /cat (f>aivtn nan *aj quoniam verum est H: om. vj?d] h KapUq. L. — a narn] + suff. s*oio &: om. L. — I^Dn] irol/juas L — -a-o] Kada iX&X-rjvev dH: rbv \6yov L. — piDD] Mamuchan iJ: ^^^ &: Mouxaios s A n c Bms 936 und * 21. — oncD] om. (&. -idd is an ancient loan-word from As sipru, 'sending,' missive/ then 'letter.' It occurs frequently in the sense of 'letter' in the Tell-el- Amarna Letters. The root Saparu from which it comes is ph. itself a Shaphel from no (see Haupt, a. I.). In Est. it is commonly used in the sense of 'letter' (c/. 313 85- 10 o20- 25- 30). In 223 61 9s2 io2 it means a book in scroll form — Y?Dn nwm] provincias regni sui 3f: ttjv fiaaikelav (g: regno suo S. — ronnV] so A: om. (£&: gens 3f. — rnroa] Kara ttjp \4£iv airQp <&: secundum inter pretationes eorum 21 : audire et legere poterat 9: -f Kara rb ypdfxfia avrijs g$b under*. — uw*?3-Sni] so 936 under*: om. (&%: diver sis Unguis et litteris 9. — irnaa-rmnS] esse viros principes ac majores in domibus suis 3: uhttc ehcu :nDi] so 936 under *: om. <&: et fuit timor magnus in omni muliere C: et hoc per cunctos populos divulgari 3. XERXES SEEKS A QUEEN 163 &, V, and 31* presuppose the same text as 1%. Hitzig's emendation, mjt nifer-Ss nanDi, which he translates, 'and should speak everything that he pleased,' is unlikely, because nvtr means 'fitting,' 'proper,' rather than 'acceptable,' 'pleasing,' and because it is construed with S and not with op (cf. 38 51S). Haupt reads pa^o instead of pa^s, and deletes the whole clause as a gloss. THE CHOICE OF ESTHER TO BE QUEEN (2' '»)• XERXES RESOLVES TO SEEK A SUCCESSOR FOR VASHTI (2' *). 1. After these events [OF1 + when he had grown sober, and had slept off his wine-debauch, and] when the anger of King Xerxes had subsided]. ©» suggests that Vashti's condemnation occurred while the King was still drunk, but ij indicates rather that this decree was made at a later meeting of the Privy Council (cf. i13). The drunkenness was over when the decree was made, but the anger lasted longer. — He [<8 + no longer] remembered [& + Queen] Vashti and [(8 -f- was mindful of] [& + all] that she had done and [& -f- all] that had been decreed against her. [Mid. -j- Then he broke out in anger against her and caused her to be put to death] [QJ1 + Then his officers answered and spoke thus: Art not thou he who didst condemn her to death on account of what she did ? And the King said to them: I did not decree that she should be slain, but only that she should come into my presence; but when she did not enter, I commanded to deprive her of royal dignity. They answered him: It is not so, but thou didst pronounce sentence of death upon her at the advice of the seven viziers. At this his anger waxed hot.] [®2 + He sent and called all the officers and said to them: Not against Queen Vashti am I angry, but against you am I angry because of the sentence. I spoke a word in wine; why have you urged me to slay Queen Vashti and to remove her name from the kingdom ? I also will slay you, and will remove your names from the kingdom.] [QIl -f- And he commanded that the seven viziers should be hanged upon the gallows.] [Jos.196 + But being lovingly disposed toward her, and not bearing the separation, he nevertheless could not now be reconciled to her; so he was grieving over the things that he wished to accomplish as impossible.] Comm. differ as to the sense in which remembered is to be under- stood. QFl, 2I2, and Mid. take it in the sense of recalled unfavourably, 164 ESTHER and so gain a basis for the idea that he inflicted further punishment upon her. The same conception underlies the interpolations of CI. This view gains some support from the following words, what she had done and what had been decreed against her, but it is in con- flict with the context. When his anger had subsided suggests that he was ready to be reconciled, and the advice of the servants con- templates the same possibility. Accordingly, RaShI, IE., Ashk., Men... Bon. take remembered Vashti in the sense of called her beauty to mind, and understand the rest of the v. as referring to the good that she had done on other occasions and the honour that the King had once put upon her ; but the words what had been decreed can scarcely refer to anything else than the irrevocable condemna- tion that had just been published. For this reason, Jos., Drus., Cler., and most modern comm. take the clause to mean that Xerxes had the rejection of Vashti constantly in mind and was uncom- fortable on acount of it. Vit. and Pise, take remembered in the sense of made mention of, and thus find a reason for the remark of the servants in the next v. 2. Then said the King's pages who waited upon him]. The courtiers make haste to drive Vashti out of the King's mind, lest she may return to power and their lives be endangered. From the non-mention of the viziers here and subsequently, tl1 and ®2 infer that they had been put to death. [E2 + After she was killed, in order that he might not remember Vashti, and what she had done, and what had been decreed against her: Vashti did not deserve a sentence of death, but this was the will of Heaven in order to destroy the seed of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.] [Jos.195 + Let the King cast out the memory of his wife and his useless love for her, and let him send through the whole inhabited world.] And let there be sought for [QF1 + the use of] the King beautiful young virgins], lit., girls, virgins, good of looks. Only virgins might be taken by the King (i K. i2), as by the High Priest (Lev. 2i'*i). Vv. 3-4 explain in detail how this plan for gathering virgins is to be carried out. 3. And let the King appoint commissioners in all the provinces of his kingdom]. Meg. 1 2b contrasts the account of the seeking for a young virgin for David (1 K. 12-4). In that case no com- XERXES SEEKS A QUEEN 1 65 missioners were necessary, for men brought their daughters gladly. In this case the King had to appoint officers to search, because men hid their daughters from him. — And let them gather all the beautiful young virgins], lit., every virgin. Gather unto is a preg- nant construction for gather and bring unto. — [Jl iC + And bring them] unto Susa the fortress]. Cf. i2. — Unto the house of the women [S1 + where there are hot baths and swimming-baths]. Cf. a"- 13. According to Dieulafoy, the house of the women, or harem, lay in the N. W. corner of the palace-enclosure {cf. i5). — [(& !G L + And deliver them] into the charge of Heghe, the King's [(51 + chief] eunuch, the keeper of the women]. Here, as in i10, only eunuchs have access to the women's apartments. On the name Heghe, see p. 69. — And let him give their cosmetics [(£31 + and the other things that they need], i.e., for the twelvemonth's process of beautification that they have to undergo before they can be presented to the King {cf. 212). 4. And the girl who pleases the King, let her reign instead of Vashti, [Jos.196 + for his longing for his former wife will be quenched, if he introduces another; and his affection for her gradually diminishing, will turn to the one that is with him.] The courtiers realize that the only way to get the King to forget Vashti is to make him fall in love with another woman. The gathering of the maidens will divert him, and out of the number they hope that one will win his heart. — And the advice seemed good to the King and he [L + readily] acted thus [Jl + as they had suggested]. This method of selecting a queen is in the highest degree improbable. According to the Avesta, the King might marry only a Persian. According to Her. iii. 84, his wife must come from one of seven noble families ; but by this plan of the pages a woman of low birth from one of the subject-races might come to the throne. Such a scheme may have been followed to obtain concubines, but surely never to select the Queen of Persia. One wonders why another of the wives, that Xerxes already had, was not elevated to Vashti's place. 1. tomans -ins] om. L. — -\nx] ko.1 ixera (&.— -|CO] iicSiraiTev (&: cf. roevj i2. -pr (cf. 710) is used of the subsiding of waters, Gn. 8». Mid. infers from 3 that it was not a real subsidence, but only 'like' l66 ESTHER one. — mVW] so x e. » mg> 03& under *: om. (36 C: Haupt deletes. — 13?] Kal ovk4ti eixvf}i] c/". 1:9. — nxi] om. 1 <£: ^a^o &. — nn^p] 4\d\r}pfl] om. 31 £. — ^roaSD]om. 3&: om. 1 A. — reapM] ^7ri5et^ciTw] om. C — n>n] cf. Jb. i1, not equivalent to a simple 'was' (cf. BDB. 226, III.). — m»an] Thebari £ = rrj fidpei. — ,,?7"??] so B2 everywhere exc. 412, see Norzi: ^J^HE} Baer everywhere: ♦JJHD Ginsburg everywhere: MapSoxatos k] de stirpe 3f: j-J^C^ ^0 &: Ik 68pa n c. amg L: + witfws 21 3f. — ™no nawi] so L n c- ams, 936 under *: om. <£C — naV-niDaVJ om. L. — »3TTOj so Ncams, 93& under *: om. (&. — roS] ds yvvaiKa (& (ds dvyaripa 936). ESTHER IS TAKEN TO THE PALACE (28-11). 8. And afterward, when the King's word and law became known, and when many [J + pretty] girls were gathered {and brought) to the fortress of Susa, [31 -f- and were delivered] into the charge of Hegai, [££ + the eunuch,] a resumption of the thought of v. 4, which has been interrupted by the account of Mordecai and Esther vv. B-7. The language is almost a verbal repetition of v. 3. Ac- cording to Josephus 200 (cf. 212), the number of the girls was 400. The interval of four years (216), during which one girl was pre- ESTHER TAKEN TO THE PALACE 173 sented every day to the King, suggests that there were as many as 1460 girls. [SI2 + Mordecai heard that virgins were being sought, and he re- moved Esther and hid her from the officers of King Xerxes, who had gone out to seek virgins, in order that they might not lead her away. And he hid her away in the closet of a bedroom that the messengers of the King might not see her. But the daughters of the heathen, when the commissioners were sent, danced and showed their beauty at the windows; so that, when the King's messengers returned, they brought many virgins from the provinces. Now the King's messengers knew Esther; and when they saw that she was not among these virgins, they said one to another, We weary ourselves unnecessarily in the provinces, when there is in our own province a maiden fairer of face and finer of form than all the virgins that we have brought. So, when Esther was sought and was not found, they made it known to King Xerxes, and he wrote in dispatches, that every virgin who hid herself from the royal messengers should be sentenced to death. When Mordecai heard this, he was afraid, and brought out Esther, the daughter of his father's brother, to the market-place.] And Esther [# + also] was taken [2F1 + by force and brought] unto the house of the King, [Jos. + and was delivered] into the charge of Hegai, [Jos. L + one of the eunuchs,] the keeper of the women]. ^ contains no hint that Mordecai was unwilling to sacrifice his cousin to his political ambition, or that Esther was unwilling to be made a concubine of the King on the chance of becoming Queen. The form was taken, instead of went, does not naturally suggest compulsion. It is the regular expression for marrying a wife (cf. also 215, where Mordecai 'takes' Esther as a daughter). St1 and Ul2 excuse their conduct by the foregoing in- terpolations. (&, in the prayer of Esther (C1230), makes Esther protest that only under compulsion has she had anything to do with Xerxes. The older Christian comm. defend Esther, either on the ground that Xerxes, not being a Canaanite, was not so wicked that marriage with him was a sin ; or that the end justified the means; or that Mordecai was inspired to do on this occasion what under ordinary circumstances would not have been per- missible. By the house of the King Dieulafoy understands the private quarters of the monarch on the east side of the palace at Susa, in distinction from the house of the women in the N. E. 174 ESTHER corner. Here house of the King seems to be the same as house of the women in 23, but in 213 and elsewhere they are carefully dis- tinguished. If the text be sound, King's house is used in two senses ; in one case, of the private apartments ; in the other, of the whole palace-complex {cf 29 413). 9. And the girl pleased him [L + more than all the women,] and [L iC + Esther] gained his favour [L + and pity]. Hegai, who was a connoisseur in such matters, discerned in her the most likely candidate for Vashti's place. — And he [J + commanded a eunuch, and he] hastened to give her her cosmetics [Jos.200 + which she used for anointing her body,] [QI1 + and her necklaces and royal cloth- ing,] and her dainties]. Thinking that she was likely to become Queen, he did his best to ingratiate himself by promptness. Since at least a year must be spent in preparation before she could go to the King (212), it was well to begin at once. On cosmetics, see 23. Dainties are lit. portions, i.e., choice parts of dishes {cf. o19- " 1 S. i4f- Ne. 810- 12; Wellhausen, Skizzen, iii. p. 114). The girls who were to be presented to the King were not merely beautified with cosmetics, but were also given a special diet {cf. Dn. i5). There is no trace in If of any objection on Esther's part, such as Daniel and his friends manifested, to eat these heathen viands; but the interpolations in 5F2 and <£ (C 28) make her refuse to touch them. According to R. Samuel, she was offered flitches of bacon ; according to R. Johanan, she finally obtained vegetables like Daniel. Rab held that she was given Jewish food from the first {Meg. 13a). Jos. translates portions by ' abundance of ointments ' ; others, more generally, 'the things that she needed'; so Mai., Men., Ser., Lyr., Bon., AV. — And to give her the seven picked maids out of the King's house. [2Ji _|_ They served her on the seven days of the week. Holta on the first day of the week, Roq'itha on the second day of the week, Genunitha on the third day of the week, Nehoritha on the fourth day of the week, Rohashitha on the fifth day of the week, Hurpitha, on the sixth day of the week, and Rego'itha on the Sabbath. All were righteous and were worthy to bring her food and drink in their hands.] [®2 -f- And the dainties which were given to her, Esther gave these heathen maids to eat, for Esther would not taste anything from the King's house.] ESTHER TAKEN TO THE PALACE 175 The article with seven maids shows that this was the prescribed number allotted to every one of the candidates for royal favour. The addition of picked shows that Esther's seven were better than those assigned to the other beauties. That these maids came from the house of the King, rather than the house of the women, is sur- prising (cf 28). Perhaps the meaning is merely, that they were supplied and maintained by the King. — And he transferred her and her maids to the good (rooms) pE1 + and to the delicacies] of the house of the women], i.e., he did not allow her to remain in the ordinary quarters of prospective concubines, but assigned her apartments such as were reserved for royal favourites. 10. Esther had not disclosed her race nor her descent]. This is a parenthetical remark relating to an earlier period, and there- fore not expressed by the impf. with Waw consec. Wherever they have lived, the Jews have made themselves unpopular by their pride and exclusive habits (cf. the additions to 3 s and C 4 f ■). Esther, accordingly, knew that she would not be treated so well if she revealed the fact that she was a Jewess. This concealment involved eating heathen food and conforming to heathen customs (in spite of (& and ®2), yet the author sees nothing dishonourable in it. L and Jos. save her reputation by omitting this v. How Esther was able to conceal her race from the officers who collected the girls and from the eunuchs and jealous rivals in the harem, especially when her cousin Mordecai the Jew (34 513) came every day to inquire after her (211), the author does not try to explain. — For Mordecai had bidden her not to tell [Jl + anything about this matter]. [®l + For he thought in his heart, Vashti, who sought honour for herself and was not willing to come and show her beauty to the King and the nobles, he condemned and put to death; . . . and he feared lest the King, when he was angry, might both slay her and exterminate the people from which she was sprung.] There is nothing of the martyr-spirit in Mordecai, as in Daniel and his friends, who display their Judaism at all cost. So long as there is any advantage in hiding it, he does not let Esther tell her race; only when secrecy is no longer useful, does he bid her dis- close it (48). The addition of 3F1 shows consciousness that this 176 ESTHER is not the noblest sort of conduct. The older comm. are much concerned to show that Mordecai was justified in giving this ad- vice, and that Esther showed a beautiful spirit of filial obedience in following it. According to Cas., Mordecai displayed singular unselfishness in not letting his relationship to Esther be known. 11. [Jos.204 + Removing also from Babylon to Susa in Persia, her uncle lived there,] and every day Mordecai used [S1 + to pray and] to walk in front of the court of the house of the women, [Jl + in which the chosen virgins were kept,] to inquire after Esther's health and [3 + to ascertain] what had been done with her, [Jos.20* + for he loved her like an own daughter]. This is another paren- thetical remark, which serves the purpose of showing how subse- quently Mordecai is able to advise Esther in an emergency (4216). Although he does not allow her to disclose her origin, yet he keeps in touch with her ; both because he is interested in her fate, and be- cause he wishes to retain her loyalty so that she may carry out his directions. How he could thus gain daily access to her after she had been taken to the royal harem, is a question that puzzles the comm. Bert, and Wild, suggest that women were not secluded so carefully in ancient Persia as in the modern Orient, and that Mordecai might have been permitted to hold a brief daily inter- view with his cousin under the supervision of a eunuch. Only later, when he was in mourning, was he unable to enter the palace- precincts. (8, OF*, Jewish comm., Bon., San., al., suppose that Mordecai was of princely rank, because he was one of those carried away with Jehoiachin (2 K. 2412) ; so that, as officer or courtier, he had free access to the palace (cf 25). From the fact that no wife of Mordecai is mentioned, Raw. infers that he was a eunuch and, therefore, could enter the women's quarters. Haupt also regards this as possible. Keil, Haupt, at., think that he did not see Esther after she was taken to the palace, but that he used the servants as intermediaries, as in 42-18. See further on 221. How Esther could keep it secret that she was a Jewess, when she was daily inquired after by Mordecai, who was well known to be a Jew, no commentator has yet explained. Haupt's reflections a. I. do not help the case. In front of the court of the house of the women probably means at the entrance of the passage which led ESTHER TAKEN TO THE PALACE 177 into the inner court of the harem. What had been done with her, i.e., how she was progressing in the process of beautification. ©2 translates, "What miracles were wrought by her hand." Mid. understands it of magic arts practised against her. 8. ua-»nM om. L. — mm] om. (S3C (936 has under *): et juxta man- datum illius 31. — nnjtt] |2u^o2lo &. — m>:jn] om. 31. — n> Sn] pr. et tra- derentur 31: Za^. #.— »*»] Egeo 31: + )i^^^ &: Yal<& (TayaLov 93&: TaLy 249*A7ai C): Oggeo 31. — »jn Ti Vx] Haupt deletes in *», c/". 8b. — npSni]+ %sl &• — "ihdn] t6 mpdciov L: Haupt deletes. — -r^nn-Vx] soL, 93& under *: om. (&%: inter ceteras puellas 3. — ''.in t Vx] ei 3J: 7rp6j Tal <& (Tdrjp 249) : ttri rbv Tuyaiov 936 : kcu e?5e Boirycuos 6 eu»>oOxos L (Twyaios 93a): ai Oggeo H. — »jn] om. 0. — D^jn nctr] «* servaretur in numero feminarum 3: 0 m] d.\., c/. jn kvi 21B- 17 52, the usual ex- pression is iDn xxd or jri xxd. — Sn^i] Pi. in the sense of 'hasten' is found only in late Heb., cf. 2 Ch. 3521 Ec. 51 79. Haupt objects to the translation 'hasten' on the grounds that Esther's treatment with cos- metics lasted a year in any case, and could not be 'hastened,' and that she did not need to have her food 'hastened,' and translates 'and he took a special interest'; but the beginning of the treatment could be 'hastened,' even if the process itself could not be abbreviated, and it was not her 'food' but her 'dainties' that he 'hastened.' The mean- ing 'hastened' is attested by <£ €: irpoaTaTrjirai airrjs L: ad omnes nitores ejus & — nmjD nxi] so B2 Ba.: mmjD nxi G: om. LSI. — nxi] ^^^o &. — nS nnh] ko.1 iirtSwicep virtp L: om. C. The inf. with h preceded by its objects is a pure Aram, construction. Another object being introduced after this, the phrase is repeated (cf. Dn. 210- 46 624); so the versions, Keil, Bert., Oet., Schu., Wild. Kau. § 115 c and Sieg., Com. a. I., hold that the phrase does not depend upon Snm, but upon the preceding noun, and should be trans- lated 'which ought to be given to her.' — nxi2] om. L. — nn^jn]-f a &• — nrxnn] rots &ppas L. — n'i>x-in] on the insertion of Daghesh, cf. Kau. § 75 v. Ba. G om. Daghesh (cf. Ba., p. 72). This use of the pass. part. of nxi is not found elsewhere in the OT., but is common in BT. — nnS2] om. 3 (& L H. — nS] om. 3 H. — D^wn - non] om. L. — iSdh] ejusdem H. — "[Son jtod nS nnS] Haupt deletes as a misplaced correction of the preceding n1? nnS. — njtt»i] et tarn ipsam ornaret 3: - .t\ WO &: *al ixP'ti- tt>jn] in qua electee virgines servabantur 3. — njrt?] not merely of an attempt to know, but of the attainment of knowledge {cf. Dt. 82 134). — DiSiP-riN] J P| ±- &: tI avix^aeraL (g SI: usually construed with Sn^ rather than with JH1 (cf. 1 S. io4). — y»K] e* U. — n3-noV]om. £ C — na] n1* some codd. (R). THE PREPARATION OF THE GIRLS TO GO TO THE KING (212-14). 12. And whenever each girVs turn came to go to King Xerxes]. So, according to Her. iii. 69, the wives of the false Smerdis came to him in turn. How the turn was determined, is not stated. The next clause narrates merely that no girl could go to the King until she had been twelve months in the palace. Presumably, as the girls arrived at the palace, their names were recorded ; and, at the expiration of twelve months, they were called in the order of their arrival. Those who came from Susa would naturally begin their preparation sooner than those who came from India or Kush, and so would be ready earlier to go to the King. — After she had been treated in the manner prescribed for the women [®x + while they tarried in their delicacies] twelve months [QJ1 + of the year]. Lit., at the end of its being to her, according to the law of the women. What the law of the women was, is explained in the next clause. It was a twelvemonth's process of beautification with cosmetics. Cler. wrongly explains the phrase after the analogy of Gn. 1811 3 135. On law, see i8. — For this was the regular length of their period of massage; six months [(£ 3 + they were anointed] with oil of myrrh, [OF1 + which removes the hair and makes the skin soft,] and six months with perfumes and feminine cosmetics;] [Jos.200 + and the number of the girls was 400.] This parenthetical remark gives the contents of the law of the women mentioned in the pre- ceding clause. From this it appears, that every maiden was re- THE PREPARATION OF THE GIRLS 179 quired to take this twelvemonth's treatment before she could be admitted to the King. Hegai could not shorten the period in Esther's case ; the best that he could do was to begin it as soon as possible. In regard to the credibility of this long period of prep- aration opinions differ. 13. And whenever [Jos.201 + Hegai thought that the virgins had done all that was necessary in the aforesaid time, and were now ready to go to the King's couch,] [SF1 + after they had completed twelve months of the year and] each girl was going unto the King], a resumption of the thought of the first part of 12a, which has been interrupted by the long parenthesis in the rest of the v. The con- nection is, whenever each girl's turn came to go to the King, . . . and in this (i.e., in turn) each girl was going to the King. The second clause is not the apodosis, but is a continuation of the temporal clause. The apodosis follows in 13b. — Every thing that she demanded [Jl + that belonged to her adornment,] [(ft1 + whether a noble or an officer,] used to be given her [(ft1 + at once] to go with her from the house of the women unto the house of the King]. Each girl was given a chance to make the best impression, and to this end was allowed to select any garment or jewel that she thought would enhance her beauty. Whether she was permitted to retain these after her visit to the King, we are not told. Haupt thinks that she had to return them. Probably the idea is, that she kept them as a mohar, or wedding-gift. V. 15 suggests that most of the girls used the opportunity to load themselves with jewels. Here the house of the women, or harem, is distinguished from the house of the King, or private apartments, in which Xerxes received the women in turn (see i5). 14. In the evening she used to go in [SF1 + to wait upon the King], a circumstantial clause, defining more precisely the manner of presentation, and also preparing the way for the future action of the book. The girls were not merely shown to the King when their turns came, as we should expect ; but in each case the mar- riage union was consummated, as appears from 14b, where they return to the house of the concubines. — And in the morning she used to return unto the second house of the women, into the charge of Sha'ashgaz, the King's eunuch, the keeper of the [Jl -f royal] con- l8o ESTHER cuUnes]. Having received the honour of admission to the King's couch, no girl could return to the company of candidates in charge of Hegai ; but went now to another section of the harem, under the custody of a different eunuch ; where, as a concubine of the King, she was kept presumably under stricter surveillance. On Sha'ash- gaz, see p. 69. — [®2 + Her name was recorded and] she did not go in again to the King unless the King longed for her and she was summoned by name [5F1 -f distinctly and in writing.] Most of the girls, apparently, never got a second summons; but remained in practical widowhood in the house of the concubines. Only oc- casionally one made sufficient impression on the King for him to remember her and to wish to see her a second time. How many girls preceded Esther, we are not told; but evidently no one had such charms that the King thought of her as a possible successor to Vashti. This story bears marked resemblance to that of Shehriyar at the beginning of the Arabian Nights. He also had a new wife every evening, and did not suffer one to come to him a second time (see p. 76). 12. om. L. — yuroi] ovtos 5£ ?jv (&: Kal 6rav A: et quando esset £: cf. 414 614 91- 26. 3 is used instead of 3 because the turns kept coming. The inf. takes its time from \ny v. 13, i.e., it denotes recurring action in the past.— mju] om. IE: j&Wi'Ns ^o ],-*> &.— mpi] om. &(££. — tpmcnN] om. 3(121 (936 has under *): Haupt deletes. — ypv] is regu- larly followed immediately by the time-limit (cf. Gn. 43 Ju. n39 2 S. 1426). Here an equivalent of the time-limit comes first and +he time-limit follows in apposition. — D^Jfl— fl?] omnibus qua ad cidtum muliebrem pertinebant 3 : tempus puellcs 21 : om. <£ (936 has under *) : Katpos Kopdaia A. — -\w; &>}&] undecimo U: iirl 2£ Jos. — t^nn] + vertebatur 3: JALoo-* &. — »D< inSd\] of the completion of a prescribed period, as Gn. 2524 2921 503 et at. The impf. is used to express recurring action in the past, 'the days used to be fulfilled,' i.e., in each individual case. — ffpjjnjj] a.X., cf. pnpn (23- 9- 12) and the n. on 23. — piipriD— wSd*] om. 3. — BMtnn] _A^oOrf &:+ aXicpSfiepai (&:-\-ut ungerentur 3. — inn p^:]. The meaning 'oil of myrrh' is certain from the versions and the cognate languages. Meg. 13a translates it hdbd 'stacte' (cinnamon oil) or jwpDJN 'omphacinum' (green olive oil). OI1 combines both renderings. Myrrh had a healing and purifying effect upon the skin. — o^jn-ru^i] om. C — D,Enn] + aliis 3: , Aqq - &. — o^jn] uterentur 3. 13. om. L. — rt?3l] om. 3. 'And in this,' i.e., 'in turn,' refers back to the first words of v. 12. In this case nm is a continuation of the tem- ESTHER IS CHOSEN QUEEN l8l poral clause of v. 12 and the apodosis follows in 136 (so Bert., Rys., Wild.). Others make this the apodosis of the sentence. In that case nrai must be taken temporally, 'and in this time,' 'then' (so <£, QJ1, J. & T., Pise, Sieg., Haupt). Others understand n?3l to mean 'and in this condition,' i.e., 'prepared,' as described in the previous verse (so #, Miin., Tig., Vat., AV.); but the expression for this is p2 (416). RV. seems to suggest that 'and in this' means 'under the following conditions,' and refers to the permission to take with her whatever she pleased. — rryjn] nj?jn codd., rryjn Q: om. 3C62I (93b has under *). — nN3] ptc. f., not pf., on account of the accent (cf. Ewald, §331; Konig, i. 643 /.). It takes its time from the following impf. used to express recurring action in the past. — Y?D?1— rw] om. C — Sd Jin] ical <&. This can hardly be taken as the obj. of IBfttn. It is rather the subj. of the pass. \TW construed with nn (Kau. § 121a). — IDKn] 'com- manded' as in i10. This verb and the following one are impf. to ex- press recurring action in the past (Kau. § 107 c). They govern the time of the protasis in 12-13. — jnr] on the pointing, see Ba., p. 72. — r\?-; ni:1-] et ut eis placuerat composites transibant 3. We should expect rather Non^, but the reading is sustained by (5 avveiaipx^Oai. This has suggested to ©' the idea that persons, not things, accompany the girl to the King. So Ramb. al., but v. 15 shows that this is impossible. 14. PliQ— 3"W3j et cum introiret mulier ad domum regis H: tr. to v. ,e L. — n>o] ptc, taking its time from the preceding impf. as a frequentative in the past. — "ipaai] cf. Ba., p. 72. — rotp *on npaai] ad diem unum et recurrebat H: tr. to v. le L. — natp] + atque inde deducebatur 3. — no Vn- Y?cn] om. L. — D*un] om. 3. — "W] r*»JT Sebhir: om. &. This word is grammatically unrelated to the rest of the sentence, as in Ne. 330. We must either read rpjir 'a second time,' or (n)ijt?n 'the second,' agreeing with DnMfl no (so Ba., Rys., Wild., Sieg.). Buhl suggests rwp. Haupt deletes as a gloss, as in 219 y2 929, and supposes that the girls returned to the same building from which they set out, only to the care of a different eunuch. — Sx] Sy Var. Or.: pr. quce 3. — JWM^fin— V*] om. ft — n> Sn] o5 (g. — iSdh] om. 3 44, 106. — raub'fin] a foreign word of unknown origin. For the theories as to its etymology, see BDB. 811. — Nion nS] pr. Kal $ L: om. (gffi (936 has under *). — oe>a nmpil] om. ) dvr] 4irin^K\*>o$&\ AUhail'&\ \m>H &A: Vj^ao) fc01: \ Lmd{ &u: Abihel {Chihel) SI: AjM«mW/3 (& (A/3iX<£i\ Q— vi] fratris JSI.— naS-ntPx] om. (SSI (93b has under*). — Nia1?] iv t$ eure\0e»> A: pr. 6v l/ieXXey 44: introibat £ — "l^n] -f- et factum est cum introiret ad regent SI. — 131] muliebrem cultum 3. — nx-o] om. (SSI. — nt^N] &v (g: &v airy n A N 55, 64, 71, 74, 76, 106, loSa, 243, 248, 249, C Aid.: 4k tt&vtojv 8>v avrri 44: ex quibus & — un] om. (SSI (93ft has under *). — i^nn DnD] Haupt deletes. — "l^nn] om. J g> (S 31 (936 has under *). — D»wn nw]om. 31 106: + /tc- 16. iSon-npSm] tr. aft. 29 L. — -\hdn] om. 93?; J. — ^mifnx] om. LSI 44, 106: Haupt deletes. — rva hx to end of v.] om. L. — wnako— Sit] om. (SSI (936 has under *). — n^yn] ry SwSe/cdry (SSI (SeK&ry 936 C). — cnn N^n] om. SI. — roe] nao Ba.: ^j-*] vo-ls $: 'Addp (S SI: 'AS^p 248 (so always): T^fl n c. a C: B?70 93ft. — jn:y] ^S}] &. 17. inDK-3n»^] ijpeg £: auT^s 44, 76, 106. — D'Pjn S^om. (SL3I (93ft has under *). — iDm] om. g> (SSI (93& has under *). — rjoS] om. (& (93ft has under *). — nVnnan San] 5«^sr omnes mulieres3: om. L. — D««l] 7S.S O ro &. — ma^D] rd 7uj'cuicefoi' 1 86 ESTHER <&: om. H. — rwmaj avrri <&%. — ♦rWl-JJ^mtJ om. (gL: & has, and 936 under *. 18. vn3jn-e'r\] om. L. — iSdh] om. 3. — *?hj] om. (g £ (93ft has under *). — THjjn] 1 O^O &: xal rais dvvdfjie\f/u)crev (8>: -f- Kal tfyayev 6 /3as L. — nn;j>c] ^>ro conjunctions et nuptiis 3: toi)s 7ci/Ltoi;s (J§»H: rdv 7^0^ L. — nnDN WlVD rus] Haupt deletes. — nruni] xai & + and Esther had not changed her manner of life]. This continuation of the parenthesis restates in positive form the thought of the preceding clause. The injunction of Mordecai was, of course, to conceal her race, not, as 2Fl thinks, to keep the Jewish Law, which would have resulted in the immediate disclosure of her origin. The author wishes us to admire Esther's filial obedience even after she has become Queen. This is important in the further development of the plot. 21. [Jos. 205 + Now the King had enacted a law that, when he sat upon his throne, none of his household should approach him, without being called ; and men with axes surrounded his throne ready to cut down any that approached the throne without a summons. The King, however, sat with a golden sceptre in his hand; and when he wished to save any one who came uncalled, he held it out to him; and he that touched it was safe {cf. 411) : but enough of this matter.] In those days while Mordecai was sitting [Qsl + in the sanhedrin which Esther had established for herself] in the King's gate]. This is a resumption of the sentence begun in v. 19, but inter- rupted by the parenthesis in v. 20. In those days corresponds to and when virgins were being gathered. The second clause is the same in both vv. — Bigthan and Teresh, the two royal eunuchs, [3 + doorkeepers at the entrance of the palace,] who guarded the threshold, [S1 + noticed this and met together and] were angry [(& + because Mordecai was promoted]. tip Esther [(E1 + And they said one to another: Does not the Queen with the con- sent of the King seek to remove us and to put Mordecai in our place ? It is not fair to remove two officers in order to substitute one. Then they took counsel in their language.] [Meg. 136 + Bigthan and Teresh were Tarsees and spoke the Tarsee language, and they said one to the other : Since this (Esther) has come to court we can get no sleep at night ; therefore let us put poison into the King's drink, that he may die. They did not know that Mordecai belonged to the Great Sanhedrin, every member of which understood 70 languages (similarly SI2).] [Jos. 207 + And Barnabazus, a Jew, a servant of one of the eunuchs, becoming aware of the plot, revealed it to the uncle of the King's wife ;] [(& (A13) + and he heard their discussions and investigated their schemes and learned them (similarly L in A13).] And they sought [3F1 + to give a deadly poison to Queen Esther and] to lay hands on King Xerxes [L J (E1 + to slay him] [©' + with the sword in his bed-chamber]. The object of all these additions is to explain why Bigthan and Teresh were angry with the King. (& and S1 think that it was because of the promotion of Mordecai, so Tir., Drus., al. Meg. holds that jealousy of Estherwas the cause. Others have supposed that the two eunuchs were friends of Vashti and resented her degradation. Lap., Men., Cler., suppose that this was part of a plot of Haman to seize the throne (cf 68f •). Oet. brings the anger into connection with the gathering of vir- gins (v. 19), and thinks that then the wishes of the eunuchs were thwarted. The author gives no indication of his opinion. On Bigthan and Teresh, see p. 69. The two royal eunuchs, not two of the King's chamberlains, as AV. and RV. The threshold which these eunuchs guarded was presumably the entrance to the King's private apartments. They were the most trusted watch- men; and, therefore, their treason was doubly dangerous. Lay hands on, lit. send forth a hand upon, is the equivalent of kill {cf. Gn. 3722 1 S. 247- u). Such conspiracies were common in the ancient Orient, and were the only way to get rid of a despot. Several of the kings of Judah and of Israel perished in this way (cf. 1 K. 15" 169 2 K. 914 i510- 25 2123); also of Damascus (2 K. 816), and Assyria (2 K. 19"). Xerxes himself perished through such a conspiracy (Diod. Sic. xi. 69, 1 ; Ctesias, Pers. 29), and a like fate befell Artaxerxes Ochus. MORDECAI DISCOVERS A PLOT 191 22. And the affair became known to Mordecai [2J2 + through a holy spirit] [Wl + because he was able to speak 70 languages]. How Mordecai knew this plot, 1% does not say. The additions supply a variety of reasons. The comm. have conjectured that he overheard the conversation of the eunuchs because he sat in the King's gate, but this would not be a likely place for the con- cocting of a plot. Mordecai 's sitting in the gate has no other con- nection with this v. than as an indication of time. — And [L + having considered well,] he disclosed it to Queen Esther, and Esther told it to the King [01 l + and it was written] in the name of Mordecai [J -f who had reported the matter to her]. Mordecai still man- aged to keep in communication with Esther, even after she had become Queen ; but how this was done, or how it could be carried on without revealing Esther's race, the author does not explain. Mordecai was well known to be a Jew (2s y- 6 513 610); and, if he used the Queen to communicate his intelligence to the King, it must have been conjectured that they were related. It is also hard to understand how Xerxes could have forgotten so promptly (63), if the news of this great service had been communicated by the Queen. Haupt solves the difficulty by changing the text of the v. to read, "And he disclosed it to Haman, son of Hammedatha, the Gogite, keeper of the thresh- old" (see note). 23. [Jos.208 + And the King was alarmed] and the affair was investigated and was found [S1 + true,] and [05 L + having con- fessed,] both of them were hanged upon a gallows]. Cf. 514 64 79- 10 87 913- 14- 25. The word translated gallows is lit. tree or pole; hence it has been inferred that impaling is meant (so L in 6U, Haupt). Jos., &, 3, al. think of crucifixion {cf. E18), but both of these methods of execution seem to be precluded by the fact that the tree of 514 is 50 cubits high. This can only have been a gallows. [Jos.208 + But at that time he gave no reward to Mordecai who had been the means of his escape, only] [L + Xerxes,] [05 + the King, commanded] [Jos. + the scribes to record his name] and it was written [05 + for a memorial] in the book of the chronicles [OJi -f which was read continually] before the King [05 + with praise concerning the good will of Mordecai.] [05 L (A16) -f And I92 ESTHER the King commanded that Mordecai should serve in the King's court and should guard every door publicly. And he gave him gifts on account of this] [Jos. + as though he were a most inti- mate friend of the King.] Why Mordecai should not have been rewarded at once, but his services merely recorded in the annals, is hard to understand. Literary rather than historical consider- ations have here shaped the narrative. (& solves the difficulty by inserting rewards. The book of the chronicles, lit. book of the acts of the days, was a sort of royal diary recording memorable events (61 io2). Such annals were kept by the ancient kings of Baby- lonia and Assyria, by the Hebrew kings (1 K. 1419 157 and oft.), and by the kings of Persia (Ezr.415; Her. vii. 100; viii. 85, 90; Diod. Sic. ii. 32). Before the King indicates that the an- nals were kept in his apartments, so that anything important might at once be jotted down (cf 61)- Haupt arbitrarily trans- lates 'at the disposal of the King,' but cf. the passages just cited from Her. 19. om. L. — mjp-ppm)] om. (& % (93ft has under *): + et congre- garentur 3:+ •*1*'*^ &: perhaps instead of n*# 'a second time,' we should read nijtr 'different, various' (cf. i7 3s). — OTWlJ om. 1 &. — w>] here only in book written defectively, ffl,: idepdnevev (&: *edebat C — Y?on] om. <£ (93ft has under *). 20. om. L. Haupt deletes the whole v. as made up of two tertiary glosses to '31113 DC3 -jSdS nnDN ncNni v. 22. — n*!Jp] Hiph. ptc. f. express- ing the continuance of E.'s refusal to tell her origin (cf. Kau. §§ 107 d, 116 c) — nop nxi] om. <8> (exc. 936 *). — icnd] omnia fi: a late word, as in i15 932. — Olio] ille J: avrov o] om. (&1C (exc. 93ft *). 21. om. L. — "iSdh-d^dij] om. (S: &os rrjs pvkt6$ Kal rjs ttjs rj/xipas t$s ijirvojae MapSoxcuos tv rjj ai\ri rod /3apovr)p L (A13). — "UM] + avrbv 248 C: + Mardochaus ft — ^mo-iJm] om. <& in A13, L in A11. — o-nD--\nDNV] instead of this Haupt substitutes ^JNjn amen p pnS r\on noiTD, and after v. 23 he inserts yrn Tjn vnnn 13 jrr «S iSdhi. His reasons are, that the King's neglect of Mordecai is inexplicable, if the news of his service was reported by Queen Esther herself, as the present text relates, and that the subsequent action of the book becomes clearer, if we suppose that Mordecai told Haman of the plot, and that the latter took the credit of the discovery to himself. This will explain why Haman was exalted (31), why Mordecai refused to bow down to him (32), and why Haman was afraid to put Mordecai to death at once (Haupt, Purim, p. 37). The theory is ingenious, but is wholly un- supported by the Vrss., all of which offer substantially the same text as % It is unsafe to assume that the inconsistencies which Professor Haupt would have avoided, if he had written the Book of Est., were neces- sarily avoided by the author. Moreover, this theory does not remove all difficulties. If, as Haupt assumes, Mordecai's service was written in the royal chronicle (223 61 f •), then it would have been impossible for Haman to claim the honour of discovering the plot for himself. — roSon] om. (S»C (exc. 936 *). — -tDNni] om. nnsn 3. — -ipdn] airy (g: ij (SaaCKlaaa A: ilia J — I^dS] + ' ApTai-dpi-r) N c. a mg A, 93 b -£-. — OVID Dtto] tcl ttjs eirtfiovXTJs (6 ' et nomen Mardochcei ft 23. om. L. — NXD,',i-a'|?3,,i] om. 44, 106. — cpD,|)] + 6 /WiXetJs <5. — -onn] roi>s 860 ei>po6xov* &• — nxd?i] Kal etipe toj>s \6yovs ~M.ap8oxo.lov L (A14): et invenit sic H: om. (&: + Kal opjoKoy-fjcavres (& (A14),H (A14): -f- Kal 6fio\oyr)V] mandatum est historiis et traditum 3: o*c£u£ Po *3>: Kal irpocrdra^ep 6 /SatrtXeus /eaTaxwpkrcu els p.vqpjbavvov (5: Kal eypa\pev 6 /Sas els p.ptjp.6: tovs \6yovs roirovs d» (A16): Trepl rdv \6yu)p toijtcjp L (A15): legist: + virep ttjs evpolas Mapdoxaiov kv kyKupiq <&: + Kal iiriral-ep (iperelXaro L) 6 ^aciXevs (+ irepl rod L) Mapdoxaiy (Map8oxa/ou L) depaireOeip (+ avrbp L) 4p tt) av\rj (-}- rod ftaaiXe'us Kal iraoap dvpap iirupap&s rijpeip L) Kal ebwKep aurtp 56/xara (om. L) irepl to6tu)p(& (A16) L (A16). According to Winck. (AOF. iii. 5), vv. 21-M are in their right place in } Haman was the same as Memukhan (i14). For other legends concerning him, see Seligsohn, Art. "Haman" in JE. The only Agag mentioned in the OT. is the King of Amalek (Nu. 24? 1 S. 159 sq.). Jos.211, Meg. 13a, 5F1, ®2, all Jewish, and many Christian comm. think that Haman is meant to be a descendant of this Agag. This view is probably correct, because Mordecai, his rival, is a descendant of Saul ben Kish, who overthrew Agag (1 S. i57f). Amalek was the most ancient foe of Israel (Ex. 17816), and is specially cursed in the Law (Dt. 2517). It is, therefore, probably the author's intention to represent Haman as descended from this race that was character- ized by an ancient and unquenchable hatred of Israel {cf. 310, "the enemy of the Jews"). When 93a makes him a Gogite (cf. Ez. 38-39), and L makes him a Macedonian, these are only other ways of expressing the same idea (see p. 69/). In 1 Ch. 442f it is recorded that the last remnant of the Amalekites was destroyed in the days of Hezekiah, but this creates no difficulty for our au- thor in assigning Haman to this race. That an Amalekite should MORDECAI DEFIES HAM AN 195 be raised to the highest rank in the Persian empire, is very im- probable. The cases of favour to Greek exiles adduced by Baum. (p. 26 /.) are not parallel. — And exalted him [©> + prince over everything,] and placed his throne above all the officials that were with him], i.e., made him grand vizier. — [L + so that all stooped and bowed down to the earth to him.] [S1 -f- And the Lord of the world replied: It is not yet revealed in the world. Let me alone until he magnifies himself: then shall it be re- vealed to all peoples ; and afterward recompense shall be taken from him for all the sufferings which he and his fathers have inflicted upon the people of the house of Israel.] 2a. And all the King's courtiers that were in the gate [QI1 4- of the house] of the King used to bow down [S1 + to an idol which he had placed upon him,] [Mid. + embroidered upon his garment and worn over his heart, so that all who did homage to him, wor- shipped it]; and they used to prostrate themselves before Haman [Jos.209 + when he went in to the King], for so the King had com- manded concerning him]. On King's courtiers, lit. slaves of the King, see i3. Prostration before high officials was a universal custom in the ancient Orient. In the case of the Persians it is attested by Her. i. 134 (for other references, see Bris. i. 10). From this passage it cannot be inferred that Mordecai was a royal official {cf. 26- 19). 1. ins] pr. Kal iytvero L H. — ••jJNn-Snj] ml Ijv 'Afikv 'A/xadddov Bovyaios evdoi-os tv&iriov rod fiacriXfas (& (A17) : 'Ajuav 'AfJiadddov Ma/ce- bbva Kara irpbauirov tov /3a(TiX^ws L (A17). — hlj] Pi. with pathach (Stade, § 3866).— jprnttTiN] Haupt deletes. — Ign-riN] so Ben Asher: inn-nx Ben Naphtali (Ginsburg). — risen] om. 3&. 2a. -jSdd nap] om. ), but before all superiors (Gn. 23 7 27 29 33*). There was nothing repugnant to their feelings in doing obeisance to such a great man as a grand vizier. (1) The oldest explanation of Mordecai's refusal is that of <£ in C7 (= 1314)) namely, that Haman claimed divine homage, which Mordecai, as a pious Jew, could not render. This view has been followed by Jos., ©2, RaShI, San., Lap., Ser., Bon., Men., Tir., Jun., Mai., Drus., Kamp., Bert., Keil, Net., Schu., Hal., Raw., Scho., Wild., al. In its support it is claimed that the Persian kings assumed divine honours, according to ^Esch. Pers. 644^.; Plutarch, Themist. xxvii.; Curtius, viii. 55ff-; and that Haman, as the King's vizier, shared this assumption of divinity. But no such claim on the part of the kings is found in the Pers. monuments; and, if they had made it for themselves, it is hard to see why it should have extended to their viziers. Even granting this assumption, Jews must have been able to bow before Persian rulers without regarding this as an act of worship. Ezra and Nehemiah could not have come into the close relations which they maintained with the Persian court without observing the rules of Persian etiquette. Esther and Mordecai also must have observed them when they came before the King. Mordecai could not become vizier without rendering to Xerxes precisely the hom- age that he here refuses to Haman, and he must himself have re- ceived it after his elevation (815). (2) (51 {cf. 61), the Midrashes, IE., and Jewish comm. in gen- eral suppose that Haman had an idol ostentatiously embroidered upon his robe, so that Mordecai could not bow to him without worshipping the idol {cf. Pirq. lxix); but this is a gratuitous as- sumption. (3) Meg. i$b, 16a, and S1 say that Haman had been a slave of Mordecai and had been a barber for 22 years in the town of Kefer Qarcum, and that this was the reason why Mordecai would not bow down to him. MORDECAI DEFIES HAMAN 197 (4) Kuen. and many modern comm. see in this act the influ- ence upon the author of Greek ideas of freedom. Thus the Spartan ambassadors Sperthies and Bulis refused to prostrate themselves before Xerxes (Her. vii. 136). (5) Caj., Burg, in Bon., Jun., Osi., Grot., Oet., hold that Mordecai refused to bow because Haman was an Amalekite (cf. 31). This idea is suggested also by ®2 on 3 s, where the cour- tiers ask Mordecai why he refuses to bow to Haman, when his an- cestor Jacob bowed to Hainan's ancestor Esau (Gn. 33*). Such a motive is quite in accord with the spirit of the book; but here, as elsewhere, it is not necessary to seek for historical reasons. The literary reason is clear enough. Mordecai must do some- thing to provoke flaman in order that he may seek to destroy the Jews; and this refusal to bow down, unreasonable as it is, serves the purpose. 3. [L + And the King's courtiers saw that Mordecai did not bow down to Haman,] and the King's courtiers who were in the gate f©1 + of the palace] of the King said to Mordecai, [35 + say- ing,] [05 + 0 Mordecai,] [®2 + What dignity hast thou above us who have to bend and bow before Haman that thou dost not bow down before him ?] Why dost thou [Jl + unlike the rest] disobey the command of the King [LlG + by not bowing down to Haman ?] [51 -j- and he would not answer them.] [®2 + Then Mordecai answered and said to them, O fools, destitute of intelligence, hear a word from me; and tell me, you villains, where is there a son of man who can exalt and magnify himself ? for he is born of a woman, and his days are few, and at his birth there is weeping, and woe, and distress, and groaning, and all his days are full of trouble, and at the end he returns to the dust; and I, should I bow down to such a one ? I will not bow down, except to the living and true God ; who is a flame of consuming fire; who has hung the earth upon his arm, and spread out the firmament through his might ; who by his will darkens the sun, and at his pleasure makes the darkness light; who in his wisdom has set a bound to the sea with sand, while he gives its waters the taste of salt and its billows the smell of wine ; who has enclosed it with a barrier and shut it within boundaries in the treasuries of the deep that it may not cover the earth, and that when it rages, the deep may not pass over its bounds; who by his word created the firmament, and expanded it in 198 ESTHER the air like a cloud, spread it like a mist above the clouds, like a tent over the earth, which by its strength sustains both the upper and the lower world. Before him run the sun and moon and the Pleiades, the stars and the planets; they miss not their time, they rest not, but all of them run like messengers to the right and to the left to do the will of him that created them. Him it is meet that I should praise, and that before him I should bow down. They answered and said to Mordecai, we have heard that thy forefather bowed down before Haman's fore- father. Mordecai answered and said to them, Who was it that bowed down before the forefather of Haman ? They replied, Did not thy fore- father Jacob bow down before his brother Esau, who was the forefather of Haman? (Gn. 33*). He answered, I am of the seed of Benjamin; but when Jacob bowed down to Esau, Benjamin was not yet born; and from that day onward he never bowed down to a man. Therefore God has made with him an eternal covenant, from his mother's womb until now, that he should inhabit the land of Israel, and that the Holy House should be in his land, and that his habitation should remain within his borders, and that all the house of Israel should gather there, and that peoples should bend and bow down in his land. Therefore I will not bend or bow down before this wicked Haman, the enemy.] In If it does not appear whether the courtiers spoke to Morde- cai to warn him of the risk that he ran in disobeying the King, or because they were jealous of his assumed superiority to them ; nor does Mordecai make any reply to them. Both deficiencies are well supplied by the long addition of Sk 4. Afterward, when they had spoken to him day after day with- out his listening to them, they told Haman, so as to see whether Mor- decai's conduct would be tolerated [5F1 + in opposition to the orders of Haman]. The courtiers bear Mordecai no grudge, and give him fair warning of his danger ; but, when day after day he refuses to heed their advice, they become irritated and resolve to bring him to his senses by calling Haman's attention to him. Be tol- erated, lit. stand (cf. Pr. 127), i.e., whether it would be judicially approved as legal conduct. Others following Jl translate, "whether Mordecai would persist in his conduct." — For he had told them that he was a Jew [2Fl + and that he did not bow down to Haman, because he had been his slave, who had sold himself to him for a loaf of bread ; and that he would not bow down to the idol that he wore upon him, for the Jews do not serve nor bow down to such]. MORDECAI DEFIES HAMAN iyy From this it appears that Mordecai's reply to the courtiers was, that, being a Jew, he could not bow down to Haman. Why his Judaism was inconsistent with this act of homage, we are not told 5. And when Haman [J + had heard this and] saw that Morde- cai never bowed [©l + to the idol] nor prostrated himself before him, [Mid. A. G.12a + he came toward him from another direction, and acted just as if Mordecai had saluted him, and said, My lord, peace be upon thee ; but Mordecai said, There is no peace, saith the Lord, to the wicked.] [Jos.210 + And he inquired whence he came; and, when he learned that he was a Jew,] then Haman was full of wrath [L + against Mordecai, and anger was kindled within him,] [Jos. + and he said to himself, that the free Per- . sians did not hesitate to bow down to him, but that this slave did not see fit to do so.] Apparently Haman had not noticed Morde- cai's conduct until the courtiers called his attention to it. This explains why so many days passed without Mordecai's getting into trouble. 2b. >DTiDl]om. 1 L. — JTD\] + avrcp (g LIE: + inl rrjv yrjv irdvras, irdv- tuv oTiv irpovKvvotvTwv 93a: the impf. is used to express recurring action in the past, mnritt" nSi] om. ^Lffi (exc. 936 *) : + Kal eUov ol iraides rod /SacrtX^ws 8rt 6 MapdoxaTos ov irpcxruvvei rbv 'Afxdv L. 3. iVon nay] om. (6 H (exc. 936 *).— ion] om. 0 L. — -^dd nyco] om. L. — 'O'nD1?] cui 3: Map8oxa?e 248: -}- Map5o%ate <& (exc. 44, 106: 93&-T-). — nwo n« n:nj;] c/. 9" 2 Ch. 2420. InDt.2613mxDD *u>\ — nwo r\x] om. L. 4. >m]om.:>] nai(& L. — mn> - »3] tr. after v. 3 L: Kal eiire M.ap- doxa-ios lovSacos dpi ji-.eo quod sit Judceus Si Haupt deletes the clause as an erroneous explanatory gloss to ^"HD nan. — Tun] pluperf. as in 210 36. — onS] -f- 0 Mapdoxaios (£ (exc. 106: 936 -r-). 6. lV- 13] om. L. — *»jTiD]om. n 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 236. — ninntyni] om. <&% (exc. 936 *). — nnn - nSd"»i] + ^mD *?j? K 76, 117, 166. 188, 218, 249 ©1QI2&: idvpwdr) cr L + and the lot fell for the four- teenth (L, thirteenth) of the month] the twelfth one, that is, the month of Adar]. The text of M makes no sense at this point, and it is necessary with Bert., G, Rys., Wild., Sieg., Buhl, Haupt, to supply the words inserted by 01 L. The reading thirteenth in L is probably correct in view of 313 (see crit. note). Thirteen is an unlucky number in the Book of Est. as it was also among the ancient Babylonians. Adar is mentioned only in Est. It cor- responds to February-March. 6a. om. j - anna] om. <& (exc. K c- a me. — JWmn] + neomenice H. — enn] om. 0JC — iSdS] ttJs /3aiovp 936*. — KKl] ^ooio &. — fDIl ^eV] so 936 *: om. <& ft — annS-ovc] om. L. — ^fiS] tshhS var. Oc: -f- gens Judceorum deberet interfici et exivit mensis 3 : + &o~t€ atro\4aai iv (uq. rjfi^pa rb ytvos Mapboxalov ical ewecrev 6 K\rjpos els ttjv recrcra- p€ffKaid€KdTr)u rod p.r)vbs <& (93?) om.): + rod tiriyvwvai r}p.4pav dav&rov avr&v /ecu /3d\Aei KXr/povs ets ttjv TpicrnaibeKaT'qv tov p.-r)vbjb>] om. (g L (£ has). — xin] om. L. — nn]om. C6EL&— -hn] + N«rd»/ L (Neio-dc 93a) aft. v. l0. HAMAN OBTAINS AN EDICT TO DESTROY THE JEWS (3811)- 8. [Meg. i$b + When the lot fell on the month of Adar, Haman rejoiced greatly, for he said, It is the month in which Moses died, but he forgot that it was also the month in which Moses was born. Now there was no one who could slander so well as Haman.] And Haman spoke to King Xerxes [21 L + with base heart, evil things concerning Israel, saying,] [Meg. 13b + Let them be de- stroyed; but he answered, I am afraid of their God, lest he treat me as he has those who have gone before me. Haman replied, They no longer keep the commandments. But, said the King, there are rabbis among them. Haman answered,] There is a single [Jos.212 + wicked] people [Meg. + and if thou sayest, I shall make a bare spot in my kingdom, (I reply,) They are] scattered and [Meg. + if thou sayest, We have advantage from them, (I reply,) They live] separated {although) among the races, [2F1 + and nations and tongues] [Meg. + like mules that are unproductive. And if thou sayest, they live in one country, (I reply,) They are] in all the provinces of thy kingdom] Scattered refers to the Diaspora, which began with the Exile and reached its height in the Greek period. The statement that Jews are found in all the provinces shows that the author lived later than the Persian period. Sep- arated refers to the barrier of the Law, which the Jews erected in the post-exilic period to save themselves from being absorbed by the heathen world. The language of Dt. 4s-8 is in the author's mind. What is there the boast of the Jew, Haman here uses as a reproach. — [L + They are a warlike and treacherous people,] [Jos.212 + unadaptable, unsociable, not having the same sort of worship as others.] [©2 + They are proud and haughty of spirit. In January they gather snow and in July they sit in (hot) baths, and their customs are different from those of every people,] and their laws differ from (those of) every race. [Meg. + They will not eat with us, nor drink with us, nor will they intermarry with us.] [2I1 + Our bread and our food they do not eat, 204 ESTHER our wine they do not drink, our birthdays they do not celebrate, and our laws they do not keep,] and the laws of the King they do not obey, [Meg. -f- because they observe now Sabbath, now Passover, and other feasts differ- ent from ours.] [L 21 -f- They are known among all nations to be wicked and to disregard thine injunctions.] [®2 + When they see us, they spit on the ground, and regard us as an unclean thing; and when we go to speak to them, or to summon them, or to make them render some service to the King, they climb over walls, or break through hedges, or ascend to rooms, or get through gaps; and when we run to seize them, they turn and stand with flashing eyes, and gnashing teeth and stamping feet, and they frighten people, so that we are not able to seize them. They do not give their daughters to us as wives, and they do not take our daugh- ters unto them; and whoever of them is drafted to do the King's service makes an exception of that day with excuses; and the day on which they wish to buy from us they say is a lawful day, but on the day when we wish to buy from them they shut the bazaars against us, and say to us, It is a forbidden day. In the first hour they say, We are repeating the Shema; in the second, We are praying our prayers; in the third, We are eating food ; in the fourth, We are blessing the God of heaven because he has given us food and water; in the fifth, they go out; in the sixth, they return; and in the seventh, their wives go out to meet them and say, Bring split beans, because you are weary with working for this wicked king. They go up to their synagogue and read in their scriptures and interpret their prophets, and curse our king and revile our rulers, and say, This is the day in which the great God rested. Their unclean wom- en on the seventh day go out at midnight and defile the waters. On the eighth day they circumcise their sons and do not spare them, but say that they are distinguishing them from the heathen. (The rest of the passage which relates to the Jewish feasts is too long to insert.)] No better commentary on the meaning of the v. could be found than these additions of the Vrss. They show why anti-Semitism was as prevalent in antiquity as in modern times (cf. Ezr. 41216). — And it is not proper for the King to tolerate them, [Meg. + be- cause they eat and drink in a manner to disgrace the King; for if a fly fall into a goblet of wine, they take it out and drink it; but if the King touches the goblet of wine, they pour it out.] Ha- inan's real argument, which is obscured by the additions of the Vrss., is, that Mordecai's Judaism has made him disobey the King's command; therefore all Jews may be expected to be law- breakers. This is a good deal like Memukhan's argument in HAMAN PERSUADES THE KING 205 9. If it seems good to the King, [L iC + and the decision is good in his heart,] [Jos 213 + and if thou wilt do a favour to thy sub- jects]. This is the regular formula for presenting a proposition to the King {cf. i19). — Let it be written [©' + in a writing] to de- stroy them, [Jos. -f- and that no remnant of them be left, nor any of them be preserved in slavery or in captivity. But, that thou mayest not lose the revenue that accrues from them, I will make it up out of my own fortune,] and I will weigh out 10,000 talents of silver [Jos.214 + whenever thou commandest] into the hands of the proper officials to bring into the King's treasuries. [Jos. + And I will pay this money gladly that the kingdom may be de- livered from these evils.] [Mid. 13& -f- It was known to him who said one word and the world was created, that Haman would one day offer money for Israel. Therefore he had commanded before, that they should pay shekels of silver to the Lord, as we have learned in a mishna, that on the first of Adar it was announced that the shekels should be given {cf. JT. Meg. i5).] [S1 5F2+And what does the sum equal? It equals the 600,000 minas that their fathers paid when they went up out of the bondage of the Egyptians.] The unit of measure for silver in the Persian empire was the light Babylonian royal shekel weighing 172.8 gr. troy and worth almost exactly 2 shillings. The mina was composed of 60 shekels and the talent of 60 minas. The talent thus contained 3,600 shekels and was worth about £360 (see HDB. iii. 421; EBi. iv. 4443/.; Weissbach, ZDMG. 1907, p. 402). The 10,000 talents that Haman promised were thus worth about £3,600,000 or $18,000,000. The purchasing value of this sum was, of course, much greater in antiquity than at the present time. How the author came to hit upon this amount is shown by the additions of Meg., ©\ and ®2. In Nu. 232 the total number of the children of Israel is set at 600,000. By paying a mina apiece for their de- struction, instead of the half shekel that they paid for their re- demption (Ex. 3011-13), the sum is obtained (cf. Noldeke in EBi. ii. 1401). According to Her. iii. 95, the total revenue of the Persian em- pire was 14,560 Eubceic talents or nearly 17,000 Babylonian talents. Haman thus offered almost 2/t> of the annual income of the empire. How he proposed to raise this vast sum We are not 206 ESTHER told. Tir., Bert., Keil, Oct., Wild., Sieg., suppose that he in- tended to secure it from the plunder of the slaughtered Jews (cf. 313), and that this indicates the author's estimate of the wealth that was in their hands; but 313 suggests that the plunder was offered to those who did the work of killing, and in 8" 915 the Jews are permitted to keep the spoil of their enemies. We must sup- pose, therefore, with Jos. and most comm., that the author means to represent Haman as promising this sum out of his own private fortune. In regard to the probability of such an offer opinions differ. Raw. compares Pythius' offer of 4,000,000 gold darics to Darius (Her. vii. 28) and Tritaechmes' income of an artabe of silver daily (Her. i. 192). Monarchs must have been juster in the ancient Orient than they are in the modern Orient, if a sub- ject could safely make such a display of wealth. Haman hopes that his generous offer will tempt the King to look with favour upon his plan. Those who regard the book as historical point out that Xerxes' finances must have been greatly impoverished by his unsuccessful war with Greece, and that he would naturally be glad to recoup himself in this manner. 10. And the King drew off his signet-ring [3 + which he used] from his hand and gave it to Haman, son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews, [(& + into his hand to seal what had been written concerning the Jews.] In ancient times the seal took the place of the written signature, hence to give a man one's seal was equivalent to allowing him to sign one's name (cf. 8s »■ 9 Gn. 4142 1 Mac. 616). The Jews were now at Haman's mercy. Originally seals were worn on cords hung around the neck. Subsequently they were set in rings (cf HDB. Art. "Seal"; EBi. Art. "Ring"). On the proper names, see p. 69. The enemy of the Jews defines more precisely what is suggested in the title Agagite (cf. 3*). 11. And the King said to Haman, The silver [J + which thou hast promised] is given to thee]. It is beneath the King's dignity to take a bribe for doing something that will promote public welfare. Those who think that Haman proposes to raise the money by confiscating the property of the Jews, hold that the King bestows this sum upon him as a reward for his service in HAMAN PERSUADES THE KING 207 denouncing the traitors. — And the people [2>' -I- is delivered into thy hand] to do with it as seems good to thee.] There is not the least delay or hesitation on the part of the King in handing over the entire Jewish race to destruction. Not merely the Jews in Susa and in the provinces of the Persian empire, but also those in Palestine are included in the edict. Despot as Xerxes was, it may well be questioned whether such an insane project ever met with his approval. 8. 1] om. &. — fen] om. (& (exc. 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236: 93ft *) 21 L. — w\wr\x]ficto corde propter genus Judaorumet dixit 21 : Kap8ladj?d pn] om. 3I2IL. — nun©] om. (S2IL. — irnaVo] ) -i\v> - ^|tA -) &: raw jSacriXetcus L: + Xads iroXt/mov Kal a7ret0iJsL. — cmmi] -f e* cceremoniis 3. — op Sdc] om. 31 21 L. — y?Dn] ']om. <& (exc. 936*, nc- a m*)Lft — tyjao Oc. : 1W var. Or. — nDN^nn vpy] of royal officials in general g3 (cf. 1 Ch. 29s). Here the following words show that treasury officials are meant. — joanS] om. 3. — mjj] pi. as in 47. — -jSdh 2] tua 3: teo ft om. L. 10. aft. 311 L. — lnjDBfl -f- chJtoO A. — IT SjJD] om. 0121. — njm]-f-ets xe?pa(s)<8C (exc. n*).— omntn-p] om. q^^ _^): ro{j Mr/„ds 44) 7^ y4> 76, 106, 120, 236: J i.j t C ouo &: rf/e ft. — 3ro,,i] om. i&: Xtyuv ypdcpe L: Kat eypaij/av (B : e/ scripta sunt ft. — ntt>N 2 - Son] om. L. — !>33 om. CI £ (exc. 936 *). — *?!<] + owwj 3. — iJD-nttrw] rots as L: 7r6\eis 93a. — njncijom. (8 (exc. n c- a) L (exc. 93a). — anaj— Vm] om. L. — n^ 7N1] om. 3. — OJ?) 0>?] jv*v*v. &: twc idvwv /card. Tr/»' airtbv \£i-iv(&: uniuscujusque loci gentium secundum inter pretationem eorum ft. — ttwSa-runo] om. (gft. — enwrw] so Oc: var. Or. &>ma>nN: Haupt deletes. — ano:] om. 3<8>:pr. mlg^bH. — f?Drr-Dnrui]om. <& (exc. 936*). — onnri] onnji Ba. G: Kal o~ pn] to ytvos (gft. — D'SW — 1J jc] om. (S ft (exc. 93& *) : d7rd dpaeviKov fas 0t)\vkov Kal diapwd^eLP rd rf/ina L. — naS-ova] om. L. — "\wy nanSsra] om. (gft (exc. 936*).— -its>y ow] undecimo ft : om. &. — son] om. &. — enn] om. §> d> ft (exc. 93ft *) . — dSSci] .©oi-aKLaJo &: KalrdvirdpxovTa aWi/dlG. — H31?] dtapirdaai 14. om. L 71. — anan pirno] summa epistolarum hcec fuit 3: Td 5^ dyr/- ypav (&'. om. ft. — ptfns] c/-. 48 813. In Ezr. 4"- 23 5« 711 it appears as pens. It is a loan-word through the Aram, from O. Pers. paticayan (see Andreae, in Marti, Aram. Gram., p. 79*; Gildemeister, WZKM . iv. 210; Lagarde, Ges. Abhl. 79; Armen. Stud. § 1838; Meyer, Ent. 22; BDB. 1 109). — T.runV] jrunS Ba. G:w/ scirent 3: QerldeTo <&: et imperatum est ft. The inf. with S is regarded by Sieg. as introducing the contents of the edict, as in i22. Haupt regards the clause Saa m jrunS njnm runn as equivalent to a relative clause modifying anan. — m] see j8. it 212 38: om. 3S>(Sft (exc. 93ft *). — Saa] om. Sd <£: omnibus ft. — THE TERROR OF THE JEWS 213 D*cjH - dj-hd] om. & — njnn] om. iSj] ora. J. — mSj] fXLSo &: kcu irpocreTayrj (&: not in agreement with m which is f. (cf. 38 16 411), but with the impersonal subj. of W understood before ^i^. Keil, Haupt, take it in agreement with pcnfl, and regard the clause be- ginning with fnjfT? as a parenthesis explaining the contents of the edict; but on this interpretation the publication of the law takes place before the sending out of couriers (v. 15). Keil avoids this difficulty by translat- ing vhi 'unsealed' (cf. Je. 3211 I4), but this is less natural than the con- struction proposed above which is that of Bert., Rys., Sieg. — Wi— rivnS] Winck. (26) deletes as a late addition. — Dn»Pj?] so N1 S Br. C B1: cnrj? Ba. G. — run] statutum H. 16. iVon-lwnn] om. L. — wr^OWl] om. <£il (exc. 936 *). — own -1313] i2j: Haupt deletes. — pe>] appears also as a sign of mourning in Baby- lonia (cf. III. R. 36, 3d; Winckler, Altor. Forsch. ii. p. 44; Jensen, KB. vi. p. 400), from which Zimmern (KAT.3 pp. 603, 650) concludes that it is a Bab. loan-word in Heb. It seems to have been a loin-cloth of goat or camel hair, the original dress of the desert, that survived in later re- ligious rites. — idni] Kal o8(ddds L: om. 71. — moi-N^pi] om. L. — NX*>i] om. Kih 3. — "pn3] Sia rrjs TrXareLas (£: per totam plateam 21. — PJ?Pi]-f- kv Stfcrots rrj 7r6\et 936 -—. — npjn] et vociferans 21: om. 71. — nSnj] om. C 71. — nisi] om. (£ 21 : ostendens amaritudinem animi sui et hoc ejulatu 3. 2. sin] et sedit&. — *i>*] in 21. — "03s] om. &: atrio 21. — ""WV] TTjpavXrjv L: aula 21: tt)s irdXews 93ft: rrjs avXrjs A. — T?Dn] ttjv e£a> L: mulis-hris 25: om. 936.— rN]-f ^*J)? JjoaiaJ &.— ms^ p*] cf- Kau. §ii4&- — W] tV clv\t)v (£21: irtiXrjv n c- ams, 93ft: om. L. — "l^nn] om. (S 21: ttJs 7r6\ews 93ft: ra 3aal\eia L. — ptJ>] + Kal (936 -~). 3. tr. to 41 L: tr. to 316 end K. — hjhd] ir6Xei L: om. 21. — ru*V»] oppidis 3: om. (g 21 £> (exc. n c- a ras, 936 *). — j?ud - wmi] om. L. — Dipc] ac /ocm 3. — tf»po] cstr. before the relative clause (Kau. § 130 c). — n:n] rd 7pct/i- /uara (g: exemplum epistola 21 (t6 irpbarayim n c- *■»*). — Y?nn] om. CS2I (exc. x c- ame, 93ft *). — irni] crudele J: om. #®2I. — VJC] intrans. 'ar- rived,' c/. 614 Gn. 2812. — S^n] pr. /cat (g L: tr. aft. ibdci 3nS must be translated 'by most of them.' For S expressing the agent after a passive vb., see Kau. § 121/. The presence of the article precludes the translation ' many ' of AV. and RV. Haupt 2l6 ESTHER reads F-f' (ptc. = pfjp, cf. Kau. § 53 s) and translates 'most of them had a sack-cloth and overspread ashes.' In this case J?*; agrees only with -\on, and l with dot denotes possession. ESTHER INQUIRES WHAT IS THE MATTER, AND IS CHARGED BY MORDECAI TO GO TO THE KING, AND TO PLEAD FOR HER PEOPLE (44-9). 4. And Esther's maids and her eunuchs came in and told her [Jos. + that Mordecai stood thus in mourning garb before the court]. The maids have been mentioned before (2 9) ; the eunuchs were assigned after her marriage {cf. 45). These people all know that Esther is a relative of Mordecai {cf. 222) and understand that she will be glad to hear news of him ; yet, strange to say, none of them suspects that she is a Jewess {cf. 220). How this is possible, the author does not explain. What they tell Esther, apparently, is merely the fact that Mordecai is in mourning {cf. vv. 7 ff.). — And the Queen was exceedingly shocked [(£ + when she heard what had happened], not, as Haupt thinks, at the fact that Morde- cai was so slightly clad, for this was customary, but at the grief of which it was a sign. Jewish authorities differ as to the way in which Esther's distress showed itself (see Meg. 15a). According to Mid. she gave birth to a still-born child. — And she sent [SI1 + royal] garments to clothe Mordecai, and to take his haircloth off from him], so that he might come into the palace and tell her more fully what had happened. The author assumes that Esther could hold an interview with Mordecai, provided that he were properly dressed (see 211). — [L SI + And she said, Bring him in] [H + that I may know what my brother wishes, why I hear the voice of my brother, a loud voice of trouble and mourning and weeping and distress and need ; and the eunuch went out and told him,] but he would not receive them [Jos. + nor put off his haircloth, because the sad occasion that made him put it on had not yet ceased.] This addition of Jos. gives correctly the reason for the refusal. Since nothing had yet been done to relieve the Jews, Mordecai could not take off the dress of a suppliant. 5. So Esther called [Meg. 15a, (51 + Daniel, who was surnamed] ESTHER IS CHARGED BY MORDECAI 217 Hathakh [Meg. 15a, S1 + because by the utterances of his mouth the affairs of the kingdom were decided,] one of the King's eunuchs whom he had put at her disposal]. Since Mordecai will not lay aside his haircloth and come to her, Esther is compelled to send a messenger to him. On the name Hathakh, see p. 70. — And charged him concerning Mordecai, [J + that he should go] to learn [3 + from him] what this meant [(£l + that he was weeping with such a lamentable cry,] and why it was f©1 + that he did not re- ceive the royal garments that she had sent unto him.] [Meg. 150 -I- Have the Jews perchance transgressed the five books of Moses ?] The additions of ®l indicate admirably the scope of Esther's in- quiries. Two things puzzle her, why Mordecai is in mourning, and why he will not put off his mourning. Both problems Morde- cai solves in vv.7-8. 6. And Hathakh went out [(F1 + to speak] to Mordecai, into the city-square that was in front of the gate [2I1 + of the palace] of the King]. The square, lit. the broad place, denotes the open space, outside of the gates of all Oriental cities, that is used as a market- place. On the gate of the King, see 219. 7. And Mordecai told him all that had happened to him [QT1 + because he had not bowed down to Haman and had not wor- shipped his idol], i.e., he explained the circumstances that had led him to put on mourning. What these were, the next clauses de- scribe more fully. — [Jos. + And the dispatch which had been sent by the King into all the country,] and the exact amount of silver which Haman had offered to weigh [®l -f- into the hands of the collectors of the revenue] for the King's treasury, [(£ iG + namely, 10,000 talents] for the Jews, in order that he might destroy them]. Cf. 3 9. Happened is used as in 613 ; exact amount, as in io2. Mor- decai shrewdly calculates that this buying of the Jews will rouse Esther's wrath more than anything else. The King's refusal to take the offer he does not mention, so that money seems to be the only cause for the Jews' destruction. How Mordecai came to know of this private transaction between the King and Haman, we are not informed. 8. And the copy of the draft of the law to destroy them, which had been published in Susa, he gave him to show to Esther and to explain 2l8 ESTHER to her [iEl + what the wicked Haman had devised against the people of Judah]. In order that there may be no doubt in Esther's mind as to the gravity of the situation, Mordecai gives her docu- mentary evidence. On copy, see 311; on law, i*. Contrary to the accents, Bert, attaches to explain to the following clause, but this does not improve the sense. Perhaps we may infer from it that Esther was unable to read Persian, so that Hathakh needed not merely to show her the edict, but also to interpret the con- tents.— And to enjoin upon her to go to the King to implore mercy of him, [Jos. + and, for the deliverance of her people, not to think it beneath her to assume a humble mien,] and to entreat him [S1 + for pity] on behalf of \L + himself and] her race [some codd. (& + and her native land,] [(£ L + remembering her lowly days, when she was brought up by his hand, because Haman, the next in rank to the King, had sentenced them to death; and to call upon the Lord, and to speak to the King on their behalf, and to rescue them from death.] Hitherto Mordecai has counselled Esther to conceal her origin (cf. 210), now that nothing is to be gained by secrecy, he advises her to reveal the fact that she is a Jewess in hope that through love for her the King will be moved to spare her people. 9. And Hathakh came and told Esther [(& + all] the words of Mordecai. [iC + And it came to pass, when Esther had read her brother's letter, that she rent her garment, and cried out with a bitter and loud voice, and wept copiously, and her body was made to tremble and her flesh became exceedingly weak.] This passage in 21 takes the place of v. 9 in if, but logically it follows it. 4. rvDnDl-nj^N'om] Kal iK&\ecrev evvovxov tva. Kal d7r&rrei\e irpbs 'Ed- 6i]p L: et audivit Hester regina vocem Mardochai fratris sui Hebraica voce lingua %. — Winanf] njNum QOc: c^s>o 0. — nnp] om. &. — rPDnDi] om. 1 0. — iND-rivm] om. LSI. — SnSnnrn] Hithpalp. from Sm (see Stade, § 518 c) = 'writhe.' — ns?: roSsn] quod audiens Ml &Ko6n] om. 7 1 . — TDpn] >cj-c| 0. — Sy] is not equivalent to h* v. 10 (AV. RV.), but means 'concerning' (cf. Gn. i220Nu. 822 1 Ch. 2212f), Haupt emends to ■?*. — fijnS] + ab eo 3: + *vTV <& (93b +)'• + afrr6v k c- a A, N, 71,74, 76, 120, 236, 249. — nr nc] rd aicpiph (g: -f- t6 aKptfih * r£ rouro 936: om. 71. — nr-Sjn] om. 3 93& *), — nN1 — end of v.] simul de decern millibus talentorum qua; dedit Aman pretium perditionis Judceorum & (tr. aft. 48). — qoyi] om. , 93ft *): with Qamets in the cstr., c/. Kau. § 93 w. w. — mn] om. &(g2I (exc. n c- s, 936 *). — o^nornV-nrit] om.C — pa] om. 44, 74, 76, 106, 236. — tmxpnVJom. 3&: inf. w. S giving the contents of the law, cf. 314 411 64. — pj] wwi/ ?C. — 1*?] confestim C — nnDN - romnS] om. C — -inDK] regime JL — Tjn1?"!] kcu el7rev (g H : dXX' eTirei' L : om. 3 #. — n1^] airrt? a5cuos 44. — njri-410 innV] om. 936. — W^] so n * A, 64, 243, 249, C, Aid.: airrrj (g L. — *3T^0 — nx] ttjv obtivqv rod 'IcrpatrjX L. — nN] -{- Trdvras (g (exc. 44, 71, 74, 76, 106. — "O-n;.] tovtovs (g. 220 ESTHER ESTHER FEARS TO GO TO THE KING, BUT IS URGED BY MORDECAI TO DO SO (410-14)- 10. And Esther instructed Hatha kh and ordered him [(£ (E1 + to go and to say] unto Mordecai]. The pregnant construction of 2J is rightly interpreted by Qk [(51 + That he should not stir up strife with Haman by taking upon himself the enmity that existed between Jacob and Esau. Esther also put words into Hathakh's mouth, saying to him: Speak thus to Mordecai, Has not the wicked Haman decreed through the command of Xerxes that no one may go in unto the King into the inner court without per- mission ?] 11. All the King's courtiers and the people of the King's prov- inces know, that for every man or woman who goes in unto the King into the inner court without being called] [S1 + by the mouth of Haman] one penalty is prescribed, namely, to put {him or her) to death, except that person to whom the King [J + in token of clem- ency] may extend the golden sceptre in order that he may live, [Jos. + for whenever the King does this to one who has come in un- called, he not only does not die, but obtaining pardon, is saved.] The law that no man might approach the King without summons, was designed to give dignity to his person and to protect him from assassination. According to Her. i. 99, it was first enacted by Dioces the Mede. According to Her. iii. 72, 77, 84, 118, 140; Corn. Nep., Conon 3; it was also enforced by the Persian mon- archs (see Baum., pp. 82^.). Her., however, is careful to state that people might send in a message to the King and request an audience. If this had not been permitted, the King would have been shut off from communication with the outer world. The Book of Est. knows no such qualification. According to it, even the Queen had no way of obtaining an interview with her husband, except by waiting for a summons. This is most improbable. Either the author does not know Persian custom, or he intention- ally suppresses his knowledge in order to make Esther's going to the King more heroic. Jos. tries to solve the difficulty by the as- sumption that this law applied only to members of Xerxes' house- ESTHER FEARS TO GO TO THE KING 221 hold (see the addition in 2-1). This is very unlikely. 2F1, followed by Lyr. Ser., adds the hypothesis that Haman had enacted this law recently to keep Esther from getting word to the King; but Haman evidently has no suspicion that Esther is a Jewess (512t.), and the words all the people of the provinces know show that the law had long been in force. Keil and Schu. suppose that Esther might have requested an audience of the King, but feared to do so because she was not in special favour, not having been sum- moned for thirty days. If, however, she were out of favour, why was it wiser to go to the King at the risk of her life than to request an audience? These theories all fail to render the narrative probable. The inner court is in contrast to the outer court of the King's house (64). From it (51) one could see the King sitting upon his throne (see on i5). [®2 + And for thirty days I have been praying that the King may not desire me and may not cause me to sin ; because, when I grew up in thy house, thou usedst to say to me, that every woman of the house of Israel who is taken and brought to the house of a heathen of her own accord, has neither part nor lot with the children of the tribes of Israel.] And now for thirty days I have not been summoned to go in to the King, [L 2IJ + and how can I go without being summoned ?] These words clearly assert that Esther knows no way to obtain an audience with the King, except by waiting for a summons ; and this she has no reason to expect, since she has not been called for a month. The case of Phaedyma (Her. iii. 69) is not parallel, since the question there is not the obtaining of an interview with the false Smerdis, but the obtaining of a chance to see whether his ears have been cut off. The reason for the cooling of Xerxes' af- fection is not given. The comm. suppose that another woman now enjoyed his favour. 12. [S1 + Now when the wicked Haman saw Hathakh, whose name was Daniel, going to and fro to Esther, his anger waxed great against him, and he slew him; but instantly there came thither the angels Michael and Gabriel (similarly ®2),] and they told Mordecai [C& + all] Esther's words, [21 + and Mordecai was angry.] In v. 10 Hathakh was sent to Mordecai; here the sub- ject changes suddenly to the pi. and Hathakh is not again men- 222 ESTHER tioned. From this B1, ©2, and Jewish comm. infer that Hathakh was killed by Haman. We should probably follow the Vrss. in reading the sg. 13. Then Mordecai told [QI1 + Michael and Gabriel] to reply to Esther [2^ + speaking thus to her]: [®2 + perhaps thou fanciest and sayest to thyself, I am called to sov- ereignty merely to be Queen; and perhaps thou thinkest and sayest to thyself, I do not need to ask pity for the house of Israel; but, if the foot of one Jew stumbles, do not suppose that thou alone of all the Jews shalt escape out of the King's house, because Saul thy ancestor brought this evil upon Israel. If he had carried out that which the prophet Samuel commanded him, this wicked Haman of the seed of the house of Amalek would not have come against us, and this son of Hammedatha would not have come against us, and would not have bought us from the King for 10,000 talents of silver, and the Holy One, blessed be he, would not have delivered us into the power of two wicked men (followed by a long account of God's deliverances in the past).] Do not imagine that thou wilt [QT1 + get away and] escape [(& SJI + alone] (in) the King's house apart from all the Jews]. Mordecai does not reproach Esther with indifference to the fate of her people, but shows her that she is in the same peril as they. Going to the King may be dangerous, but staying away is just as dangerous. Although she is the King's wife, Haman will not allow her to escape, when he knows that she is a Jewess, particu- larly as she is a relative of the hated Mordecai. No allowance is made for the possibility that the King may make an exception in Esther's favour. Imagine is lit. form in thy soul. 14. For if thou dost persist in remaining silent at this time, [L ©[ + and dost not make intercession for the Jews,] relief and deliverance will appear for the Jews from some other quarter [(&1 + on account of the merits of thy forefathers; and the Lord of the world will deliver them out of the hands of their enemies]. Here, as elsewhere, the author goes out of his way to avoid mentioning God. On the reason for this, see Introduction, § 29. L, Jos., Wlj ©2, supply the religious deficiency by the insertion of the name of God. Although the author does not mention God, there is little doubt that he thinks of the ancient promises that Israel shall never perish. Sieg. supposes that he thinks rather of the help of ESTHER FEARS TO GO TO THE KING 223 some other nation, as, for instance, of Rome in the Maccabaean period (1 Mac. 817 121). Even that, however, he might have re- garded as providential. — But thou and thy family will perish [Jos. + at the hands of those that are lightly esteemed] f©1 + on account of this fault]. Jos. and Lap. suppose that the Jews themselves will avenge Esther's disregard of them. Most comm. think of a special divine judgment inflicted upon her for neglect of her opportunity. Even though the other Jews may be rescued, she and her family will not be suffered to go unpunished. Bert, and Sieg. suppose the meaning to be, that many Jews will avoid the consequences of Haman's edict, but that he will not allow Mordecai and Esther to escape him. Family, lit. house of thy father, is family in a wider sense, or clan. — And who [S1 + is the wise man who] knows if [S1 + in the coming year] at a time like this thou [& + art called and] hast come unto [(E1 + the possession of] royalty, [Jl + that thou mayest be ready] [SI + that thou may- est deliver thy people]. The meaning of this sentence is uncer- tain, and there is reason to suspect textual corruption (see critical note). 10. -pnS - -lONni] om. L. — -iDNni] et misit Cc 'command/ as i17 4lJ- ls 61 9U. — "v-dn] om. 321. — "inn1?] spadonem suum £: irpos avrbv 44, 106: ei 3. — imxm] iropeijd7)Ti (g: om. 21. — Sk] Sy Sebhir cf. 45: icard L: the con- struction with ace. of the person and Sn is correct, cf. 8J Ex. 613. — »3TUD] rdde L: ravra 93a: eum ?C: + *ai elirov (+ curry 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 236) flri(g: + \4yovi] et cunctce 3. — "|L,~n] quce sub ditione sunt 3: Artaxerxes rex&: L. — Cjhv] so N1 N2 Br.: tPjrr Ba. G: yivdxriceis L: dixit C — So] xapd irdv- ras L. — rvtm\ wx] homo omnis gentis 2j : om. L. — mc^an - Sn 2] om. L. — ■ttrtl] here f. (cf. 51 64), see Albrecht, ZATW. xvi. 49.— nwjfln] so A £: TTjv£] \h^J. &.— 0^] + igitur quomodo ad regent intrare potero 3: + et quomodo introibo ad re gem et exiit H + Kal 7ru)s elDX>)] /cai air43] generally regarded as "ace. of place. Is it possible that we have here an instance of the late Heb. use of iva in the sense of 'wife' (see on 21) ? In that case the clause would mean 'that thou shalt escape as wife of the King.' This rendering is suggested by the addition in ££, quoniam uxor regis sum. Haupt reads n>M as in i9. — Sdd] p in the sense of separation, 'away from,' 'as an exception to,' as Ru. i« (see BDB. p. 578 b). 14. >o] ws 6ti. (g: 6'rt A, 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236: om. §L — ttnnnj om. (& £ L (exc. M c- a m?, 93ft *). — >t^nnn] irapaicotaris (g: virepldys L: mm prcemiseris E. — n?n n>o] rou edvovs ] in the sense of 'stand forth,' 'ap- pear, 'as Ezr. 263 Ne. 765, a late usage. — D-nin^S] fi^wnS G: avroTs L (^v airois 93a). — nnx oipED] per occasionem aliam 3 : dWodev <& £ : 6 0eds L. — n«i3 nyS-QN jn.V *»pi] T^/jo knows, followed immediately by an impf., is equivalent to perhaps. Most comm. assume that who knows if has the same meaning. n#S is commonly rendered for a time, and the whole sentence is translated, perhaps for a time such as this thou hast attained to royalty, i.e., thou hast providentially been raised to the position of Queen in order to help thy people in this emergency (cf. Gn. 45 7 5020). No other instance occurs, however, where who knows if is equivalent to per- haps. If this were the meaning, instead of dn we should expect x*>ox or xSn, whether not. Moreover n#S ordinarily means at a time. Accord- ingly Bert., Keil, Reuss, insist that dx must be given full conditional force, and that an implied apodosis must be supplied from the context. Bert. ESTHER RESOLVES TO GO TO THE KING 225 and Reuss translate who knows {what may happen), if at a time like this thou goest to royalty? (i.e., to the King). Keil translates, who knows, if at a time like this thou hast attained royalty, {what thou shouldst do?). Schu. translates, who knows whether for a time like this thou hast come to royalty? in the sense, who knows whether thou hast sufficient courage to act like a queen in this emergency. (H1 takes njjS temporally, and under- stands like this to refer to the corresponding season of another year, so that the whole sentence means, who knows wliether a year from now thou wilt be Queen? These interpretations are all unnatural, and one is com- pelled to suspect textual corruption, although the Vrss. support the read- ing of M. Perhaps for j?t" knowing, we should read >rv will harm (Zp. i12), and translate, and who will harm, if at such a time as this thou hast drawn near to the royal presence? i.e., how can any one hurt thee, when he learns what impelled thee to this step? The clause will thus be an encouragement to Esther to run the risk. For yjn in the sense of 'draw near,' see 43614 817 o1- 26. For nwSe 'kingdom,' as a synonym for 'king,' see i9- 19 216 51 68 815. It is analogous to the English use of 'majesty.' — nxo] -f _o ^^j-oZJ &. — didSdS] -f ut in tali tempore para- reris !&:-\-ut gentem tuam liberes. Et introiit spado, et renuntiavit verba Mardoch&i Hester regince £: + kolI aireXdCjv dvqyyeiXcu avrfj 71. ESTHER RESOLVES TO GO TO THE KING (41517)- 15. [21 + And the eunuch went in and reported to Queen Esther all the words of Mordecai.] Then Esther told [(E1 + Michael and Gabriel] to reply to Mordecai [C6 L + saying] [J + as follows,] [21 + Master, brother, if it seems best to thee, I will go in, though I may die]. 16. Go, gather all the Jews that are found in Susa [& + the for- tress,] and fast for me, and eat nothing for three days, [21 + and tell the elders to keep a fast; let them separate the sucking babes at night from their mothers, and let not cattle or sheep graze during these days,] [(51 + and pray before the Lord of the world night and day]. Mordecai's argument is convincing, and Esther re- solves to go to the King at once; but since she appears on behalf of the Jews, she desires their spiritual support. On found, see i5. The number of the Jews in Susa must have been considerable, since, according to 915, they were able to slay 300 men. Fasting can only be a religious act designed to propitiate God. Normally, it is followed by prayer (2 S. 1216-23 1 K. 2127-29 Dn. 9s Jo. i1* 226 ESTHER Jon. 38-9)- Here, however, in accordance with the author's cus- tom, no mention is made either of God or of prayer (cf. 43- " and see Introduction, § 29). By three days only parts of three days are meant. Esther begins to fast on the day that Mordecai gives her information about Haman's plot, continues to fast the follow- ing day, and on the third day goes to the King (51). This consid- eration detracts somewhat from the observation of the old comm. that she trusted in God rather than in her beauty, which would be impaired by three whole days of fasting. — I also and my maidens will fast likewise]. Although the maids given by Hegai (29) must have been heathen, yet Esther values the help of their fasting; and they are loyal enough to her to be willing to undertake it. Bon. supposes that under the religious instruction of Esther they had become proselytes to Judaism. — And in this condition I will go to the King [J + uncalled], although this is not in accordance with the law; and if I perish [5F1 + from my women's quarters and am taken away violently from thee {cf. Meg. 15a),] / perish [© » + from the life of this world for the sake of the salvation of the people of the house of Israel ;] [SF2 + but I shall have a part in the world to come]. If I perish, I perish is a despairing expression of resignation to the inevitable, as Gn. 4314, "If I am bereaved, I am bereaved." No religious enthusiasm lights up Esther's re- solve. She goes, as one would submit to an operation, because there is a chance of escaping death in that way. 17. And Mordecai [OF1 + was sad and indignant and he] crossed over and acted in accordance with all that Esther had enjoined upon him.] Ordinarily 'cross over' means 'transgress.' Assuming that the fast began on the 13th of Nisan (312), and that Mordecai fasted three days, he must have continued to fast until the 15th of Nisan, which was the feast of Passover; thus he transgressed the law of Ex. 12 (so Rab in Meg. 15a, El, QI2, Mid., and Mich.). There is nothing, however, to show that Esther's fast began on the same day on which the scribes began to write (312), and it is quite unnecessary to put this meaning upon 'crossed over.' Most recent comm. assume that this means no more than ' proceeded ' (cf. Gn. 186 Nu. 2226 al.), and this is certainly a possible interpreta- tion. In Meg. 15a R. Samuel asserts that a sheet of water lay THE PRAYER OF MORDECAI 227 between the palace and the city, which Mordecai was obliged to cross. It is a fact that the Acropolis of Susa was separated from the city by the river Choaspes, the As. Uknu and the modern Ab-Kharkha, and to this fact the author of Est. may allude in the expression crossed over. [(H1 -+- And he transgressed against the joy of the feast of Passover, and he appointed a fast and sat in ashes.] [U + And the bridegrooms went forth from their couches, and the brides from their dainties; the elders also and the old women went out to pray. He prescribed that the cattle and the sheep should not graze for three days and three nights. All put on ashes and invoked God most high that he would take pity upon their humility. Mordecai, moreover, rent his garments, and spread haircloth beneath him, and fell upon his face to the earth with the elders of the people from morning until evening (similarly ®2).] [®2 -f- At that time they investigated and found in the assembly 1 2,000 young priests, and they gave them trumpets in their right hands and books of the Law in their left hands; and, weeping and lamenting, thus they cried toward heaven : O God of Israel, this is the Law which thou hast given us. If thy beloved people perishes from the world, who will stand and read from this and will make mention of thy name ? The sun and the moon will be darkened, and their light will no longer shine, because they were created solely for the sake of thy people. And they fell upon their faces and said: Answer us, our Father, answer us! Answer us, our King, answer us! And they blew upon their trumpets, and the people responded after them, until the hosts of heaven wept and the forefathers forsook their graves.] ADDITION C. THE PRAYERS OF MORDECAI AND ESTHER. At this point <£iCL insert the following prayers of Mordecai and Esther (Addition O30 = Vulg., Eng. ^s-i^19). Jos. has the passage in a different and greatly abbreviated form. Yos. ii. 3 and Mid. also give distorted versions of it. ®2 inserts a different prayer of Esther after 51. In regard to the authenticity of the passage, see Introduction, § 20. For the Greek text and variants see Paton, HM. ii. pp. 24-27. The addition reads as follows: lThen he made his prayer unto the Lord, calling to remembrance all the works of the Lord, 2and said, O Lord, Lord, thou King Almighty, the whole world is in thy power, and if it be thy will to save Israel, there 228 ESTHER is no man that can gainsay thee : "for thou hast made heaven and earth, and all the wondrous things that are beneath the heaven ; 4and thou art Lord of all, and there is no man that can resist thee, who art the Lord. 6Thou knowest all things, and thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to the proud Haman. 6For I should have been glad for the sal- vation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. 7But I did this, that I might not place the glory of man above the glory of God: neither will I bow down to any but to thee, who art my Lord, neither will I do it in pride. 8And now, O Lord, thou God and King, the God of Abraham, spare thy people: for they watch us to bring us to naught, and they desire to destroy the heritage that has been thine from the beginning. 9Despise not thy portion, which thou didst redeem out of the land of Egypt for thine own self. 10Hear my prayer, and be merciful unto thine inheri- tance: and turn our mourning into feasting, that we may live, O Lord, and sing praises to thy name: and destroy not the mouth of those that praise thee, O Lord. nAnd all Israel cried out mightily, because their death was before their eyes. 12Queen Esther, also, being seized with the agony of death, fled unto the Lord : 13and laid away her glorious apparel, and put on the garments of anguish and mourning, and instead of fine ointments she covered her head with ashes and dung, and she humbled her body greatly, and all parts (of her body) that she (ordinarily) rejoiced to adorn, she covered with her dishevelled hair. "And she prayed unto the Lord, the God of Israel, saying, O my Lord, thou only art our King: help me that am desolate and have no other helper but thee: 15for my danger is at hand. "From my youth up I have heard in the tribe of my family, that thou, O Lord, tookest Israel from among all the nations, and our fathers from all their progenitors, for a perpetual inheritance, and didst perform for them whatsoever thou didst promise. 17And now we have sinned before thee, and thou hast given us into the hands of our enemies, 18because we glori- fied their gods: O Lord, thou art righteous. ■ Nevertheless it satisfies them not that we are in bitter captivity: but they have joined hands with their idols, 20that they will abolish that which thou with thy mouth hast ordained, and destroy thine inheritance, and stop the mouth of them that praise thee, and quench the glory of thy house, and thine altar, 21and open the mouths of the heathen to celebrate the virtues of idols, and that a fleshly king shall be magnified forever. kO Lord, give not thy sceptre unto those that do not exist, and let them not laugh at our fall : but turn their device upon themselves, and make him an example that has begun this against us. 23Remember, O Lord, make thyself known in the time of our affliction, and give me boldness, O King of the gods, and holder of all dominion. 24Give me eloquent speech in my mouth before the lion : and turn his heart to hate him that fights against us, that there may THE PRAYER Of ESTHER 229 be an end of him, and of those that are like-minded with him: 26but de- liver us with thine hand, and help me who am desolate and have no one but thee, O Lord. 26Thou hast knowledge of all things; and thou knowest that I hate the glory of him who does not keep the Law and abhor the bed of the uncircumcised, and of every alien. "Thou knowest my necessity: that I abhor the sign of my high estate, which is upon mine head in the days when I shew myself. I abhor it as a menstruous rag, and I do not wear it when I am quietly by myself. ^And thine handmaid has not eaten at Haman's table, neither have I honoured the King's feast, nor drunk the wine of the drink-offerings. "Neither has thy handmaid had any joy from the day that I was brought hither to the present, but in thee, O Lord, thou God of Abraham. 30O God, that art mighty above all, hear the voice of the despairing and deliver us out of the hands of the wicked, and deliver me out of my fear. 15. -i2Nm] Kal (e£)a7r6rretAej> 03&*). — p2i]om. i&:/ccdr6re(g2I: kcuL: according to Bert., Wild., with so-called Beth essentia, which is used either with the primary or secondary predicate to express an essential state of the subj.; 'as such,' i.e., 'as one who has fasted three days' (cf. Lv. 1714 Ez. 1319 Ec. 810; Kau. § 1 19 ii; BDB. p. 88, 1. 7). According to others, 2 has the ordinary meaning, and the phrase means simply ' in such a state.' — 1£>n] the ante- cedent is the previous clause / will go to the King. Others regard nS icn as equivalent to Syr. ]3? 'without.' — rnu-liPN] irapa rbv vbpjov (§>: AkXtj- ros L: + non vocata 3: om. 21. — >m:)N2-na>$oi] idu Kal &iro\£: et dioc Kal airodaveiv p.e L: habens in manu animam meant -f- exiit spado et dixit verba ejus 21 : tradensque me morti et periculo 3. 17. -opi] om. "ar L. 23O ESTHER THE DELIVERANCE OF THE JEWS (5l-919) ADDITION D. ESTHER GOES TO THE KING AND IS GRACIOUSLY RECEIVED These verses are expanded in (& iC L into Addition D = Chap. 15 in 3 and AV. For the Gr. text and variants, see Paton, HM. ii. pp. 27-29. Mid. has a similar passage. 1 (= D1-6 = 151-6). Afterward, on the third day [OI1 + of the Passover,] [(& S L + when she had ceased praying, she put off her garments of worship,] [®2 + after she had fasted three days in succession, and she arose from the dust and ashes where she had bowed herself without ceasing,] [C + and washed her body with water, and anointed herself with ointment;] then Esther clothed herself [Vrss. + in garments of] royalty, [©2 + adorned with pure gold of Ophir, made of fine Frankish silk, ornamented with precious stones and pearls brought from the province of Africa. And she put on her head a crown of pure gold, and shod her feet with sandals of fine gold,] [fli + and adorned herself with orna- ments,] [QI1 + and the Holy Spirit rested upon her {cf. Meg. 15a).] Although Esther has besought the favour of God through fasting, she does not fail to make use of her own charms. On the third day, cf. 416. [dill L + 2And being majestically adorned, after she had called upon the all-seeing God and saviour, she took her two maids with her: 3and upon the one she leaned, as though she were delicate; 4and the other followed bearing her train. 5And she gleamed in the perfection of her beauty, and her countenance was cheerful, as though she knew that she was lovable, but her heart was in anguish for fear. 6Then she passed through all the doors.] And she stopped [SI1 + and prayed] in the inner court of the King's house f©1 + which was built] over against the King's house [Wl + that was in Jerusalem.] On inner court, cf. 4". Over against refers to Esther, not to court or house. SI1 refers it to ESTHER GOES TO THE KING 23 1 house, and understands it to mean that the palace in Susa was the counterpart of the palace (or temple) in Jerusalem. On King's house, see 28- 9- 13 413. [Meg. i$b -\- And as she passed by the house of idols the divine pres- ence left her. Then she said, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Dost thou judge a sin committed accidentally as one done in- tentionally, and one committed under compulsion as one done willingly ? Or is it perhaps because I have called him a dog ?] And the King was sitting upon his royal throne in the royal house, [SI1 + and he saw everything] over against the door of the house.] From the inner court Esther can look through the open door and see the King seated on his throne at the farther end of the throne-room. He can look out and see her standing in the court. Here she pauses to see what the King will do. She has already violated the law in coming as far as the inner court (411). On royal throne, see i2. The royal house is regarded by Dieulafoy as the throne-room in distinction from the King's house, or royal residence, but in i9 213- 16 the two are identified. Probably the expression is chosen merely for variety. [(£ IE L -f- 6And he was clothed with all his robes of majesty, all covered with gold and precious stones; and he was very terrible. 7Then he lifted up his countenance that was flushed with glory in fierce anger.] [S1 + Then Esther answered and spoke thus: Lord of the world, do not deliver me into the hands of this uncircumcised one, nor accomplish the desire of the wicked Haman upon me, as he accomplished it upon Vashti, whom he persuaded the King to put to death, because he wished him to marry his daughter. But it was the will of Heaven that she should be afflicted with a loathsome disease so that her mouth stank exceedingly, and they led her forth as quickly as possible. So she was excluded in order that I might be married to him. Now, then, render me acceptable in his sight, that he may not slay me, but may grant my desire and my petition which I am about to ask of him. Thou also in the multitude of thy mercies be favourable to my people, and do not deliver the chil- dren of Jacob into the hands of Haman, son of Hammedatha, son of 'Ada, son of Biznai, son of Aphlitus, son of Deiosos, son of Peros, son of Hamdan, son of Talyon, son of Atnisomus, son of Harum, son of Harsum, son of Shegar, son of Negar, son of Parmashta, son of Way- zatha, son of 'Agag, son of Sumqar, son of 'Amalek, son of 'Eliphaz, son of the wicked Esau (cf. (E2 on 31).] 232 ESTHER 2 ( = D716 = i57-16). Presently, as soon as the King saw Queen Esther standing [QJ1 + sorrowfully] in the court [S1 + with both her eyes streaming with tears, and looking up toward heaven,] [21 + he was enraged and determined to destroy her, and he shouted uncertainly, and said, Who has dared to enter the court un- called?] [

Di»] -f vestimentis J: om. <£: + ^A»QX^ &: to, l/xdna L: vestimento 51.— riH7D] T77!/ 56|?7>' aur^s (&: t^s 56£?7S L: glorice suce £: so also 68 815. Possibly, with Bert., Rys., Wild., we should follow the Vrss. in inserting 013*?. Others think that pidSd may be an adverbial ace. = 'royally,' or that it may mean 'regalia.' — 1 (=D6). icym] Kar^arrj (&: eo-rrj L: in the sense of 'came to a stand' (cf. Jos. io13 Ju. 935). — "j^Dn 2 - 10pm] om. C — niCJon - isnn] om. (&L. — flM] tvibiriov (g L: Karev&iriov 93Z) N c- a. — no] om. xro] om 3. — jn nx^j] cf. 217. — wpa-nnri] /cat /xeW/3a\ei> 6 debs rb irvevpux rod PacrChe'ws els irpa6rt)ra (g : Kal p.er ifiaXev 6 6ebs rb Trvedfia rod /SacriX^os Kal /xere'drjKe rbv dvpjbv avrov els Trpabriyra L: Deus autem iram convertit in miserationem et furorem ipsius in tran- quillitatem SI.— 2 (= D12). »w] Kal &pas L atipiov L, (Com.). — 3*8— OK] postulatio mea rex H: + ob- secro 3. — nu1] in agreement with the nearest subj. bee. preceding, cf. v. B. — DT>n pni -|SDn nu"1] a few codd. — Y?nn om. 3: /ecu avrbs (&: 6 /Seun\ei>s xe«am^A52, 108a, 243, C, Aid., 64, 936:0-1) LSI. — pm] -f 6 c/>i\os &: om. 21 : Pi. 'hasten,' in the sense of 'bring in haste,' as Gn. 188 1 K. 229 2 Ch. 188 Est. 610. — fori n*J om. £. — 131 dn] Ij^d]? ^-*| &. — i.-idn] regincB £. — «3M-end of v.8] om. 3G. — fom iSnn] dp.N] om. 0. — nnt^;*] elirev (£. — ir®»] ew regina 3: + Seorvoj' iroXvreXts L (936 under -j-): om. 249. 236 ESTHER AT THE BANQUET THE KING AGAIN OFFERS TO GRANT ANY RE- QUEST, BUT ESTHER ASKS ONLY THAT HE AND HAMAN WILL COME TO ANOTHER BANQUET ON THE FOLLOWING DAY (5s •). 6. And the King said to Esther during the wine-drinking, What- ever thy request is, [<£ 2F1 -f- Queen Esther,] it shall be granted thee; and whatever thy petition is, [®l + Even if thou dost ask] as much as half of the kingdom, it shall be done.] After the meal wine- drinking began (cf Her. i. 133; Est. 72- 7 Dn. i5- 8). This put the King in good humour, and he repeated his offer. The language is almost identical with that of v. 3, q.v. [SI1 + Except the building of the House of the Sanctuary, which stands in the border of half my kingdom, I cannot grant thee, because I have promised with an oath to Geshem the Arabian, Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the Ammonite, the slave, that I would not permit it to be rebuilt, lest the Jews may revolt against me.] [Jos. + But she put off the stating of her petition to the next day.] 7. And Esther said [QI1 + I do not ask for half of the kingdom as] my request and [QI1 + I do not ask for the building of the House of the Sanctuary as] my petition; [3 + they are these.] Esther starts to tell the King what is in her heart, My request and my petition — then suddenly recollecting herself, or changing her mind, she resolves to put the matter off to another day. 8. [®2 -f And Esther answered, O King,] if I have obtained the King's favour, and if it seems good to the King to grant my request and to accede to my petition]. The usual formula for presenting a matter to the monarch (cf. i19 39 54 73 85). — Let [(£ codd. + my lord] the King and Haman come [<& L + to-morrow also] to the banquet which I will prepare for them, and to-morrow I will do as the King wishes]. This delay in presenting her petition is even more unlikely than her previous unwillingness to tell the King what she wanted (v. 4). Whatever reasons may then have caused her to wait, existed now no longer, and a second banquet could be no more favourable occasion than the first. The reason for the delay is that the author needs time for the disgrace of Haman. HAMAN PLANS TO HANG MORDECAI 237 6. om. U. — VHm^] ei 3: om. 44, 106. — nnB>c:s] postquam biberat abun* danter 3: om. L. — p»n] om. (£L (exc. n «• at»s, 936 under *). — hd] -+- &TTtv (5a. On officials and courtiers, see i3. 12. And Haman [LJC + boasted and] said : Queen Esther brought no one with the King to the banquet which she had pre- HAMAN PLANS TO HANG MORDECA1 239 pared except me, [21 4- and the Queen mentioned nobody but me, and I am his favourite among all his friends, and my seat he has placed above all others and it is honoured by all;] and to-morrow also I am invited by her [2Il + to feast] along with the King.] It is most surprising that, in spite of all Esther's dealings with Morde- cai (2n- 22 4416), Haman has no suspicion that she is a Jewess, but regards her invitations as tokens of signal favour. Esther must have dissembled with consummate skill at the first banquet. The first half of the v. refers, not to the coming banquet (Sieg.), but to the one just finished. Brought refers to the custom of send- ing slaves to escort a guest to a feast (510 614 Lu. i417)- 13. But all this fails to satisfy me all the time that I see Mordecai the Jew sitting [QJ1 + in the sanhedrin with the young men] in the King's gate [L ik & + and he does not bow down to me.] One wish ungratified poisons the whole cup of life for Haman. With all that he has, he cannot be happy until Mordecai is punished (cf. 32 59). Fails to satisfy me, i.e., lit. is not adequate for me. Mordecai's race is here well known to Haman (cf. 2b 610 87). This makes it all the more surprising that he does not know that Esther is a Jewess. On King's gate, cf. 219- 21 y 59 610- 12. 14. And Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him: [L + He belongs to the Jewish race. The King has permitted thee to destroy the Jews, and the gods have granted thee a day of destruction in order to punish them.] [S1 + If it please thee, let us speak one word in thy presence. What are we to do to this Mordecai the Jew? If he be one of the righteous who are created in the world, and we try to kill him with the sword, the sword will perhaps turn and fall upon us. If we seek to stone him, once with a stone David slew Goliath the Philis- tine. If we cast him into a chain of bronze, Manasseh once broke it and escaped from it. If we throw him into the great sea, the children of Israel once divided it and passed through its midst. If we cast him into a furnace of flaming fire, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah once ex- tinguished it and went forth from it. If we fling him into a lion's den, the lions once did Daniel no harm. If we cast him alive to dogs, the mouth of dogs was once shut in the land of Egypt on account of the chil- dren of Israel. If we send him into captivity, they were once carried into captivity and multiplied there. By what penalty then can we kill him, or what sort of death can be inflicted upon him ? If we cast him into prison, Joseph was once brought from prison to royal dignity. If 240 ESTHER a knife be thrust at his throat, the knife was once turned away from Isaac. If we put out his eyes and let him go, he will kill some of us as Samson killed the Philistines. We do not know what punishment we can inflict upon this man unless this: (similarly ®2, Mid., Mid. A. G.).] Let them prepare a gallows fifty cubits in height [L + and let it be set up.] They are so sure that the King will give Haman whatever he wishes that they advise that all be made ready for the execution of Mordecai. The word tree does not signify stake or cross but gallows , as is evident from its height (cf. 223). Its enor- mous size, over 83 feet, is one of the characteristic exaggerations of the book (cf. i1- 4-8 212 3 s- 12). — And in the morning speak to the King [L + about him,] [2F1 + and let his blood be poured out at the door of his house,] and let them hang Mordecai upon it, [(51 + that all the Jews and all his companions and friends may see him, while heaven and earth together behold the gallows which Haman has prepared for Mordecai.] So Amestris asks Xerxes to kill the wife of Masistes (Her. ix. no). See also Plutarch, Artax. 14/., 17, 23. Is it possible that the grand vizier could not put an ob- scure Jew to death without first obtaining permission from the King? — Then go merrily with the King to the banquet.] Having destroyed his enemy, there will be no barrier to Haman's perfect enjoyment of Esther's feast. — And the advice seemed good to Ha- man and he prepared the gallows [Jos. + and gave orders to his servants to place it in the court for the execution of Mordecai.] Cf. i21 24. Mid. here appends a long discussion of God with the trees as to which one should furnish wood for the gallows. [5F1 + Haman waited impatiently for the morning to go before the King and ask for the gallows. At this time Haman son of Hammedatha did not put off his garments, nor did he lie down until he had gone and brought carpenters and smiths ; the carpenters to make the gallows, and the smiths to forge an iron knife. And the sons of Haman exulted and rejoiced, and Zeresh his wife played on the lyre with the wicked Haman. He said also, I will pay wages to the carpenters and I will prepare a feast for the smiths on account of this gallows. That same hour, when Haman arose to try the gallows with his own length, there went forth a daughter-voice from the highest heaven and said to him, It is good, wicked Haman; and fits thee, son of Hammedatha.] [Jos. + And God laughed to scorn the hope of the wicked Haman ; and knowing what was HAMAN PLAIMS TO HANG MORDECAI 241 about to happen, he was delighted that it would be so.] [3P -f- And from the day in which Esther invited Haman to the banquet the children of Israel were distressed, saying thus among themselves: We expect daily that Esther will ask the King to put Haman to death, but instead of this she invites him to a banquet. At this same time the whole family of Jacob poured out their soul, and had faith in their Heavenly Father, speaking thus: Answer us! Answer all the afflicted! As the eyes of servants wait upon their masters, and as the eyes of a handmaid wait upon her mistress, so our eyes wait upon thee until thou wilt appear and de- liver us. For, behold, an enemy and a foe pursues us and says, Who are these Jews ? Then He hearkened unto the voice of their prayer and answered their petitions, for every time that He rescued them from their enemies He rescued them at night, from Pharaoh, and from Sennacherib, and from all that rose up against them.] [®i Qfs-f- «in tnat night" went forth deliverance to the Jews. "In that night" Sarah was taken to the house of Abimelech. "In that night" all the first born of the Egyptians were slain. "In that night" their oracles were revealed to the Prophets and visions to the dreamers of dreams. That same night the whole world was shaken, cities and all their inhabitants ; and there was great mourning in all cities, lamenta- tion and crying in all provinces, young men girding themselves with sack- cloth, old men and women beating upon their breasts, and all weeping bitterly and crying with a loud voice: Alas! because we see destruction upon destruction and breach upon breach. From our first breach we have not yet recovered, nor is healing restored from our wound, nor have we received consolation from our sorrow, nor have the afflictions of our heart departed from us. The city of our fathers lies upon the ground, and the enemy has closed our Sanctuary, and our foes have trampled our Temple-courts. Neither Pharaoh nor the Egyptians took counsel against us after this manner, nor did the kings of the heathen devise plans against us in this way, that they should be ready against that day to cut us off from the face of the earth (He who reveals secrets has revealed this secret to Mordecai that a decree of death has been issued against us, the house of Israel), nor did they sell us as man servants or as maid servants. In that night the sleep of the Holy One, the Supremely Blessed, forsook him; but if the following Scripture were not written, it would be impossi- ble to say this, for it is written, "Awake! why sleepest thou, Lord?" Do not say that, for sleep is never present with Him; but when the house of Israel sins, He acts as if He were asleep ; but when they do His will, "He who keepeth Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps." In that night the sleep of Mordecai the just also forsook him; for he was awake and did not lie down ; or if he lay down, he did not sleep, because the house of Israel were gathered and sat before him, saying: Thou thyself hast been 16 242 ESTHER the cause of all this evil that has come upon us. If thou hadst risen up before the wicked Haman and hadst done obeisance and hadst paid homage to him, all this distress would not have come upon us. Mordecai answered and said to them: The outer garment which Haman wears has two idols depicted upon it, the one on the front, the other on the back. If then I should rise up and do obeisance to him, I should be found to have worshipped idols ; but you yourselves know that he who worships idols shall perish from this world and shall be excluded from the world to come. Then they all kept silence before him. In that night sleep forsook the wicked Haman, for when he was awake, he did not lie down ; and when he lay down, he could not sleep, from the time when he pre- pared the gallows on which to hang Mordecai, without knowing that he was preparing it for himself. In that night sleep forsook the righteous Esther, because she had prepared food to invite Haman to a feast with King Xerxes. In that night sleep forsook the foolish Xerxes, for when he was awake he did not lie down; and when he lay down, he could not sleep, because a spirit possessed him which possesses kings and disturbed him the whole night. At length he spoke and addressed his nobles thus: Whatever I eat does not agree with me, whatever I drink I cannot retain. The heavens have thundered against me and the heaven of heavens lifts up its voice. Is it because I have not remitted the tribute which I prom- ised to remit to the provinces ? Or have Esther and Haman planned to kill me, because Esther invites no one to the feast with me except Haman? In that night the memory of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob came before their Heavenly Father, so that an angel was sent from the height, Michael himself, the commander of the army of Israel, who, sitting at the head of the King, drove sleep away from him the whole night long.] 9. fOn NXm] Kal dvyjyy^Xij r<£ 'Afidv L, 93ft 4-. — Ninn Dio] Kara ra avrd L 936 -T- : om. <££ (exc. N c a »»*, 936 under *). — TOT] inrepxapys (&: Kal idatifjuio-ev L, 936 -J- : om. H : + <*7rd T0^ PaviXtus (& (exc. 936) : + a ccena C: -f Kal 6 /Wt\ei>s avaXfoas L, 936 -S-. — 3T3 ] ev(ppaiu6/x€vosr-Dp] Pf. be- cause a parenthetical circumstantial clause (Kau. § 106 d. e.). Accord- ing to Haupt the two forms are participles in the ace. as rngj (52). — u^r.] de loco sessionis sua 3. — *3T«B by \&n] om. (& (exc. n c- a ms, 936 under *: A has 'Afidv): Haupt deletes fori. — by non] here only in OT. 10. poNrm] om. (gL9J (exc. Ncam^, 936 under *). — pn] om. <& (exc. nc a,"f, 936 under *): Haupt deletes. — n^n] om. (8IL (exc. HAMAN PLANS TO HANG MORDECA1 243 N orn^ 0^ under *). — x:ri] «f «^ * 3. — raw] tous (piXovs <& (-f- avroO LIC). 11. om. L.— pnl om. 3 <& (exc. x c- a) & — "naa nx] om. (6 (exc. 936).— VWJJ 103] in i4 in reverse order. — vja 211] om. (&% (exc. x c- aing, 03& under *). — V12 2-n] Hitzig in Bert, finds this expression peculiar and proposes to read vjb ant, 'and his abundant dignity.' This is very un- likely.— nxi] introducing clauses that are objects to "iddm (Kau. § 157 c). — rxi-end of v.]om. H. — Vonxjom.^. — So] 56|ai'(g: irdvra 93ft: Haupt regards Sd as impossible in this connection and transposes to a position before Dntrn. — iVij] avrip irepUdriKev (6: om. 3. — "18>M PH 2] om. J#r-onw Sy]om. <&.— Sj?]-h S3 K 117, 252, R 379, 2I1 ®2 3.— najn] . t| «^v ,\«a ,?!5i^o 0. — -jSnn najn] kcu ijyeco-dai rijs /3acrt\eiaj (£. — "l^nn] 5W0S 3. 12. pan 'HMIM] accu ^cavxaro XiyttP L: e/ gloriabatur dicensVx. — pnjom. 3: Haupt deletes. — ^x] />o.tf /k» 3: ws L: om. (651. — -nox] om. ] om. IE. — D>"] el jxtj L. — nnrp-SKj ^ iwid] /cat i/u£ pMvov L. — "i^^n - dji] regina autem nullius mentionem fecit, nisi mei: et ego sum necessarius tuus inter omnes amicos ejus, sedile autem meum supra omnes, et ah omnibus adora- tur %. — DJ] om. (& L. — -[Sen ay nVj om. <& L (exc. x «• a »ie, 936 under *). — nVj s in the meaning of 'by,' after a passive {cf. 43 Ru. 310). 13. Sdi] om. (£L (H has). — »V-i"iT] touto 5£ Xv7rer pe /x6vov~L. — 733 ntt'X nyJSrai'CgLlC: iviravrl xpbvy orav K c- a ms, 93ft under*: |&Jxfe \aa &: quamdiu 3: Bert., following ^LH, regards HJJ as indefinite on account of the absence of the art. and translates 'every time that,' but this is not necessary, since n>* is cstr. before the following relative clause (cf. T.TN D'ipD 43 817), and, therefore, may be definite even without the art. The phrase means, accordingly, 'all the time that,' 'so long as' (so &3 AV. RV. Sieg., Rys.). — 3&v] om. $LC (exc. x c- % 936 under *). — -i>'ao] iv rrj avXy (g L: om. C — Y?on] om. «Snf n _Lo ^1*1 jJ* &: + /ecu urj irpoa-Kwei /xe L: + non adorantem me S. 14. mi] c/. 510. — Sm] om. ^^Lli (exc. x c- a, 936 under *): ceten 3. — vans] oi l] ut appendatur 3 : /cai Kpefma-O^ru} (5 1C : «ai Kpiua'] 7rpds L. — nriB'Dn Sx] om. L. — noir] /cai eveppaivov (g (om. /cai L). — -onn] om. L. — >:dS] tj^j73 some codd., 0. — pn] ei 3: + s-C^ &. — VJ?n B'yii] icai iiroi- rja-ev o&tws L: the idea, of course, is not that Haman constructed the gallows with his own hands. 'Made' may equal 'had made,' or Vp} may be regarded as impersonal, as S^on (37). 244 ESTHER THE KING IS REMINDED THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO REWARD MORDECAI (613). 1. That night the King's sleep fled.} Here, as everywhere, the author goes out of his way to avoid mentioning God. OS 21 L S1 ©2 correct the defect and say that God took away his sleep. — [Jos. + Now he was not willing to pass the sleepless time idly, but chose to devote it to something that was profitable for the king- dom,] so he ordered [(£ OF2 + his secretaryl to bring the book of memorable events, namely, the chronicles [Jos. ©2 + of the kings that had reigned before him and of his own deeds.] This is not a natural way of passing a sleepless night — with his numerous wives the King might have found something livelier, but the author chooses it because this was the book in which Mordecai's service in discovering the plot against the King was recorded (see 223). According to this passage the book was kept in the King's room. — And they kept on reading before the King [S1 + the decrees of the kings that had reigned before him.] The periphrastic form of the verb expresses the duration of the action. Since the King could not sleep, the reading lasted all night. [QJi ul2 + And Michael sat over against him, and the King looked and saw as it were the form of a man, who addressed the King thus : Haman desires to slay thee and to make himself king in thy stead. Behold, he will present himself in the morning and will wish to ask thee to give him the man who saved thee from death in order that he may kill him; but say thou to Haman, What shall be done for the man whom the King wishes to honour ? and thou wilt see that he will ask for nothing else from thee but royal garments, the crown of the kingdom, and the horse on which the King rides. And the man who was reading was one of the scribes.] [Jos. + And when he had brought the book and was reading it, it was found that one, on account of his virtue on a certain occasion , had received a country, and its name was stated; and another was re- corded to have received a present on account of his fidelity.] 2. [H + And the God of the Jews and Lord of all creation guided the hand of the reader to the book which the King had written to remind him of Mordecai,] and it was found written [<& El + in the book] how Mordecai had informed [(£ L + the King] concerning Bigthan and Teresh, the two eunuchs of the King who XERXES REMEMBERS MORDECAI 245 guarded the threshold, who had sought to lay hands on King Xerxes [(F1 + to kill him in his bedroom.] [Meg. 16a + And the secre- tary blotted it out, but the angel Gabriel wrote it again a second time (similarly Mid. A. G.).] See 221. At the very moment when Haman is planning to hang Mordecai the King's attention is un- expectedly directed to Mordecai 's service and he determines to heap honours upon him. This is the way that things happen in story-books, but not in real life. 3. [Jos. -f And when the record stated no more than this and passed on to another matter,] then the King said, [(& codd. -f to his servants,] What honour or dignity has been conferred upon Mordecai because of this? and the King's pages who served him said, [©' + As yet] nothing has been conferred upon him. [Meg. 16a -f This they said, not because they loved Mordecai, but because they hated Haman.] Improbable as it is that Mordecai's service should be merely recorded, instead of being at once rewarded (2"); it is much more improbable that Xerxes should utterly forget the man who saved his life, particularly when he was a friend of his beloved Esther (222). It was a point of honour with the Persian kings to reward promptly and magnificently those who conferred benefits upon them {cf. Her. hi. 138, 140; v. 11 ; viii. 85; ix. 107; Thuc. i. 138; Xen. Hell. iii. 1, 6). According to Her. viii. 85, the Persians had a special class of men known as Orosangai, or 'benefactors of the King.' See on 223. On pages, see 22. [Jos. -f And he commanded to stop reading.] [L + and the King gave close attention, saying: That faithful man Mordecai, the protector of my life! He it is that has kept me alive until now, so that I sit to-day upon my throne, yet I have done nothing for him! I have not done right. And the King said to his pages, What shall we do for Mordecai the saviour of the situation? And, reflecting, the young men were envious of him, because Haman had put fear in their hearts; and the King perceived. Then day broke.] [Jos. + And he inquired of those appointed for the purpose, what hour of the night it was; and when he was informed that it was dawn, he commanded that, if they found any of his friends who had come already before the court, they should tell him.] [(8 + And, at the moment when the King learned about the kind- ness of Mordecai, behold, Haman arrived in the court,] [U -f- for Haman watched in the royal palace and 300 men with him.] 246 ESTHER 1. Y?£H njtr rmj] 6 §£ Kt//nos diriaT^aev tov virvov airb tov /3as (5: 6 8£ Swards d7r&rr?7(re top virvov rod /3a: Kal ^k\?7- drjaav ol dvayvwa-rai. L: et dixit rex C — NOn*?] -)- sjfo" 3: eia^peiv 0j>: elo-3 1 Ch. 222 2 Ch. i18Ne. 916b. — -ibd Pn] ypdp.fw.Ta <&: Kcti t6 pipXLov L: librum C — "pen - nuiorn] e/ ocw/z w« somnum capiant et extendit lector manum suam in bibliotheca Cp. — nm] om. (£ L (exc. x c- a, 936 under *). — D,D,n] om. L. Haupt, in defense of his singular emendation of 222, arbitrarily rejects D^dti nan as a gloss derived from 223 and io2. — vmi D^Nipj] avayivdxTKeiv (&: aveyi.v(bo~K€To L. — "l^on ^jcS] avT§ (£L: aura iv(t>iriov tov /SacTiX^ws N c- a, 93ft under *. 2. aro nsdm] ventum est ad ilium locum ubi scriptum est J: ciTsey 5£ t& ypap.pja.Ta. to. ypa4vra (j£: /cat ^j> virbdeais L: Judceorum autem Deus gubernavit manum lectoris ad librum quern scripserat rex memoriam facere Mardochceo £. — *vjn] iirolijce evepy^Tijpxi L: liberavit eumfa. — *3TTC] de periculis H. — Sy] insidias 3: om. L. — Hf] om. 3L. — "l^nn] ovtou A: om. 3LH 44, 106. — HDn norc]^ t. — rcxM-end of v.] om. ft — WWCj om. <£ (exc. 936): pr. oc 3&. — r\y;i] iirolrjaas <&. THE KING COMMANDS HAMAN TO CONFER ROYAL HONOURS UPON MORDECAI (6110). 4. And[H + straightway] the King said, Who is [©» + the man who stands] in the court? just after Haman had entered the outer court of the King's house [Jos. + earlier than the customary hour] to speak to the King about hanging Mordecai on the gallows which he had erected for him, [HI + but the Lord did not permit him to speak.] Haman apparently cannot wait until morning to ask permission to hang Mordecai on his high gallows, but comes in HAMAN ADVISES XERXES 247 the middle of the night to the palace, although there is no reason to expect a summons from the King at that hour (cf. v. 5). His coming coincides with the moment when the King learns of Mor- decai's service and wishes to find a courtier to execute his com- mands. This sounds more like fiction than history. The improbability is somewhat relieved by the Vrss. which represent Haman as coming the next morning ; still, even on this hypothesis, the coincidence is too lucky to be natural. Haman waits in the outer court because he dares not enter the inner court without a summons (see 411). He hopes that, if he is on hand, the King may soon call for him. To speak to the King, as in 514. On the erection of the gallows, cf. 514. 5. And the King's pages said unto him, Behold, Haman is waiting in the court; and the King said, Let him enter.] The fact that Haman alone is found in the court suggests that it is an un- usual hour, when none of the other courtiers are present (cf. v. •)_. Enter, i.e., into the King's bedchamber. 6. And Haman entered; and the King said to him, [Jos. + Be- cause I know that thou alone art a faithful friend to me, I beseech thee to advise me,] what is to be done with the man [LC + who honours the King,] whom the King longs to honour [Jos. + in a manner worthy of his generosity?] It is a fine stroke of literary art by which Haman himself is made to decide what honours shall be paid to the man whom he has decided to hang. The King does not give him time to present his petition, but immediately asks him the question, What is to be done? lit. What to do? as in i15. In 214 the same verb, longed, is used of the King's craving for one of his wives. — And Haman said to himself, [Jos. + Whatever advice I give will be on my own behalf, for] on whom besides me does the King long to bestow honour?] Haman's total lack of suspicion makes the blow that falls in v. 10 all the more crushing. To him- self, lit. in his heart. This is one of the passages from which Meg. 7 a infers the inspiration of the Book of Est. How could the author know what Haman said in his heart, if he were not inspired ? 7. And Haman said to the King, [Jos. + If thou wishest to cover with glory] the man [Id + who honours the King] whom the 248 ESTHER King longs to honour]. The sentence thus begun is not com- pleted in the next vv., but Haman constructs a new sentence in which the man is object. For similar anacolutha, see 411 57. The insertion of Jos. removes the anacoluthon. 8. [(51 + Let the King make a decree, and] let them bring a royal garment which the King has worn [S1 + on the day of his accession to the throne,] [iC + and a golden crown]. Haman proceeds to enumerate the things that were counted tokens of highest honour among the Persians. The garment is not merely such a one as the King is accustomed to- wear (AV., RV.), but, as the perf. indicates, and as ®2 understands, one that he has actually worn. Plutarch (Artax. 24) relates that a certain Tiri- bazos asked the King to take off his mantle and give it to him. The King acceded, but forbade him to wear the mantle. From this it appears that to wear the King's own robe was accounted one of the greatest favours (cf. 1 S. 184). — And [IG J + place him upon] a [L 30 + royal] horse on which the King has ridden [S1 + on the day of his accession to the throne]. There is no ancient record of this method of rewarding service to the King of Persia, but it is analogous to the wearing of the royal garment. Cf. 1 K. i33, where Solomon is seated on David's horse; and Gn. 4143, where Joseph rides in the second chariot. — And on whose head a royal turban has been placed]. This clause has given great trouble to the older comm. because they have supposed it impossible that a royal turban should be placed on the horse's head, and because in 815 such a turban is placed on Mordecai's head. (& L Jos. omit. iC substitutes clad as I have said above. 3 renders he ought . . . to receive a royal crown upon his head; Mim., Tig., Cler., Ramb., and let a royal crown be placed upon his head; Jun. & Trem., Pise, and when a royal crown is placed upon his head, then let them give the garment, etc.; Pag., RV. mg., and the crown royal which is set upon his head. All these renderings are grammatically impossi- ble. On whose head can only refer to the horse. In the follow- ing narrative the crown does not appear as part of Mordecai's attire, which shows that it belongs to the horse's outfit. So SI1, ©2, IE., and Jewish interpreters generally, Dieu., Caj., Vat., and most modern comm. There is no real difficulty in this idea. The HAMAN ADVISES XERXES 249 As. reliefs depict the King's horses with tall, pointed ornaments like a royal turban on their heads (see Layard, Nineveh, vol. ii. pi. 9). It is likely that a similar custom prevailed in Persia. On royal turban, see i11. 9. And let them give the garment [®J + of purple] and the horse into the charge of one of the King's noble officials], to see that the ceremony is carried out properly, and to add dignity to it by his presence. — And let them clothe the man whom the King longs to honour, [Jos. + and put a gold chain about his neck,] and make him ride on the horse [L & + and lead him about] in the city-square.'] The subject may still be impersonal, as in the preceding clauses, or it may be the noble officials of the last clause. The account of Joseph's elevation (Gn. 41 38-44) is in the author's mind. From this source Jos. derives his addition (Gn. 41 42). See Rosenthal, "Der Vergleich Ester- Joseph -Daniel," ZATW. xv. (1895), pp. 278 Jf.; xvii. (1897), pp. 125 ff. The purpose of the riding is to display the man's honour to all the inhabitants of Susa. On city-square, see 46. — And [Jos. + let one of the King's most inti- mate friends precede him and] proclaim before him, This is what is done for the man [L iC + who honours the King] whom the King longs to honour^ A crier explains the meaning of the procession as it advances (cf. Gn. 4143). From this advice of Haman QJ1, SI2, and the Midrashim infer that he was plotting to seize the throne (cf. 2F1 ®2 on 61). 10. [Jos. + Thus Haman advised, supposing that the reward would come to him.] [®2 + And the King regarded Haman closely, and thought in his heart and said to himself, Haman wishes to kill me and to make himself King in my stead: I see it in his face.] Then the King, [Jos. + being pleased with the advice,] said to Haman, [QI2 + Haman! Haman!] make haste, [®2 + Go to the King's treasury and fetch thence one of the fine purple cover- ings and] take the garment [®2 + of fine Frankish silk adorned with precious stones and pearls, from all four of whose sides hang golden bells and pomegranates; and take thence the great crown of Macedonian gold which was brought me from the cities of the provinces on the first day that I was established in the kingdom ; and take thence the fine sword and armour that were brought me 250 ESTHER from the province of Kush, and the two fasces covered in royal fashion with pearls which were brought me from the province of Africa. Then go to the royal stable] and [®2 + lead out] the horse [®2 + that stands in the chief stall, whose name is Shifregaz, upon which I rode on the first day that I was established in the kingdom ;] [Jos. + and take the neck-chain] as thou hast said, and do thus unto Mordecai [Meg. 16a, ST1, ST2 + Haman answered, Which Mordecai? The King replied] the Jew. [Meg., El, (U2 + But, said Haman, There are many of that name among the Jews. I mean, said the King, the one] who sits in the King's gate [2F1 + in the sanhedrin which Queen Esther has established.] [Meg. + Give him, said Haman, a town or (the toll of) a river. Give him that also, said the King.] [QI1 + Haman answered, I ask thee to slay me rather than to impose this duty upon me. Make haste, said the King,] omit nothing of all that thou hast said, [Jos. + for thou art my intimate friend; be, therefore, the executor of those things which thou hast so well advised. This shall be our reward to him for having saved my life.] Thus with a word the King blights Haman's hope. The sudden climax is very artistic and is not improved by the additions of the Vrss. The King is aware that Mordecai is a Jew. Perhaps we may suppose that this was recorded in the royal annals that were read before him (61). He is also aware that Mordecai habitually sits in the gate of the King (2i9. 21 32 59. i3)} although this fact would not naturally be men- tioned in the annals. This lends some support to the theory of the Vrss. that Mordecai was a royal official (cf. 211- 19), or we may suppose that the King had noticed him as he passed to and fro through the gate. How the King knows so much about Mordecai without suspecting that his friend Esther (222) is a Jewess, is hard to understand. It is also difficult to explain how he can honour Mordecai the Jew in this signal fashion, when he has just con- demned all the Jews to destruction (31113); or, at least, how he can avoid making some provision to exempt Mordecai from the edict of death. All these honours would be of little use to him, if he were to be executed a few months later. Perhaps the author sup- poses that Xerxes had a short memory ; and had forgotten his edict against the Jews, as he had forgotten Mordecai's service (2" 68). HAMAN ADVISES XERXES 25 1 4. nxna] ia-nv tf£u E. — pn.-cnd oi v.] aft. 66 ft — *a pm] paren- thetical subordinate clause giving the time of the previous vb. — N3] 1}v L. Instead of nxnS N2 Haupt reads nxn ■?* nd. — njrcTin - -renS] om. <&: 'Afiav 3e wpdpUeL L: ad regem et cogitabat 10. — 'njix^nn] inter ius 3. — ^sdS] + et juberet 3. — rwr-S] inf. with *? giving the contents of the conversation with the King (cf. 314; Kau. § 114 g). — ^-Sj?] om. L. — h] om. (& (exc. M «•*■*, 936 under *). 5. nxna-nDJoVJ om. L. — vSn] om. 3 <& (exc. n c- am^, 936 under *). — run] om. 3 ft — nxna ncj?] om. ft 6. pn ni:pi] om. 31 (£ (exc. n c- a»>», 936). — pn] om. J L — "fron V?] pr^T^on R 593: 6 /Sao-iXeus Ty 'A/id^(gi|I. — iSoni] om. j. — n;_] j.1^ |3o &. — mtrj;1?] 7rot^ (&. — fftrij 'long,' 'desire,' as 1 K. 1333 216 Est. 214. — 13s::] + e£ reputans 3: \4yuv L: cww cogitatione sua ft — '•d1'] neminem ft — V,— fW^] /mte/ re# necessarium ft — ~cv] 'excess' is a late Heb. word found only in Ec. and Est. p nnv 'excess from' (Ec. 1212 and here) does not mean 'more than' (Wild., Sieg., BDB.) but 'other than,' 'be- sides ' (so Haupt) ; •*«*, 93& under *). — flwna - na>Ni] om. L<£ (exc. n c- ai»e, 936 under *): indutus qua supra dixi ft et accipere regium diadema super caput suum 3 '. Haupt deletes as a tertiary gloss based upon a secondary gloss in 815. — jrn] Maur. regards as Qal, impf. 1 pi. for \r\i (cf. Ju. 165); but there is no Maqqeph here, and therefore no reason for shortening the vowel. The 1 p. would also be inappropriate in the mouth of Haman. The form is Niph. pret. 3 sg. 9. pnjl] Kal Xa/Sera; ravra L: om. pnj ft inf. abs. instead of finite vb. in lively discourse (cf. 23). Here preceded by jussive and followed by perf. with t cons. (Kau. §113 2).— V - B>iaSn] om. 31 L (& (exc. M c a me, 936 under *). — enaSn] om. 3. — T Sj?] 'into the charge', cf. 23- 8- 14 39. — v^x] primus 3: £pl(&:dsL,:unus%. — D^Dmon] see on i3. — didd - Daemon] om. ft — waSm] Oort, Haupt, read the sg. — np>a - lcaSni] om. 3. — np>a--\c>N] om. L 44, 106. — Dion Sy inaonm] et incedens 3. — aima] 252 ESTHER J n'A a p oi_2c?|^4Jo &: 5ta r^s wXareias (j£: xw to/a £: Kal TepieKdiru) L. — "vpn] om.jj. — iN"ipi] Kr)pv A. — "I^n^] palatii 3: om. L(S (exc. A 106). — Vcn Sn] 'do not let fall,' i.e., 'do not omit' (cf. Jos. 2145 Ju. 219). — -o-t] -f- iirirov L. — "vpn Sims] /cat ityyayev ' Afiav rbv 'iirirov e£w + koX Trpoa-^yayev atirbv e£w L: pr. ko.1 8i^\6ev CSC — vjd^ X^wv CSH: om. 31 L. — C"nV) iravrl &r&pt&vtp CSC: t£ &p8pl r£ rbv /3aV] misit et narravit £. — pn om. JC: Haupt deletes. — ttnT1?] cf. 510: om. L. — vanx SoSi] om. ^L: om. So 3 CSC — So2] om. CS (exc. 936).— imp] of misfortunes {cf. 4? Gn. 4429).— ^] so N2 C B2 G: iS S Br. Ba. (p. 75), om. L: + 'A/xdv a. When Daghesh is inserted, it is the so-called Daghesh forte conjunctivum (Kau. §20c). — vcon] >*ginVi»i HAMAN TELLS HIS FRIENDS 257 &: oi 0i\ot aurots L: + quia jam propheta est H. ESTHER DENOUNCES HAMAN TO THE KING (614-76). 14. While they were still talking with him, the King's eunuchs appeared, and brought Haman with speed to the banquet that Esther had prepared.] Lit. hastened to bring Haman. There is no suggestion here that Haman in his grief had forgotten his ap- pointment with Esther, or, as Meg. 16a suggests, that he was afraid to go, so that eunuchs had to be sent to fetch him. It was the cus- tom to send servants to escort guests (cf. i10 510- » Lu. 1417)} and the expression hastened means no more than brought expeditiously. With what different emotions Haman went from those that he had anticipated (5'4)! [Jos.261 -f- And one of the eunuchs named Sabouchadas saw the gal- lows that was erected at Haman's house, which Haman had prepared for Mordecai, and he inquired of one of the domestics for whom they were preparing this. And when he learned that it was for the Queen's uncle, since Haman was about to beg the King that he might be pun- ished, he for the present held his peace.] 1. So the King and Haman came to banquet with Queen Esther.] To banquet is lit. to drink. Here, as perhaps in 315, the verb is used as a denominative from the noun banquet, lit. drinking (cf. Jb. i< 1 K. 2012). 2. And or* the second day also the King said to Esther during the wine-drinking]. The wine-drinking was the later part of the meal after food had been served (see on 56). — Whatever thy request is, Queen Esther, it shall be granted thee; and whatever thy peti- tion is, even as much as half of the kingdom, it shall be done.] See 53 6, where almost the same language is used. Esther has already put the King off twice when he has offered to grant her request (5* 8), but his good nature is unbounded. l7 258 ESTHER [QJ1 + Except the rebuilding of Lhe House of the Sanctuary which stands in half the border of my kingdom, I cannot grant thee, because so I have promised with an oath to Geshem, and Tobiah, and Sanballat; but wait until Darius thy son shall grow up and shall inherit the king- dom; then it shall be done.] [L -f- And Esther was in an agony of fear at the thought of telling him, because her enemy was before her.] [QJl -f~ And Esther raised her eyes toward Heaven.] [L -f And God gave her courage, when she called upon him.] 3. And Queen Esther answered, [Jos. 262 -f lamenting the danger of her people, and said:] [iC + Neither silver nor gold do I seek.] If I have obtained thy favour, O [(H1 + exalted] King, and if it seems good to the King [S^1 + of the world]. See on 5 s. — Let [(T1 + the saving of] my life f©1 -f from the hand of those that hate me] be given me as my request, and [(F1 + the deliverance of] my people [QI1 + from the hands of their enemies] as my petition.'] Now at last the author allows Esther to speak the words for which she risked her life (4s). The only reason for the delay has been to give an opportunity for Mordecai's triumph over Haman (see on 54 8). The ellipses in Esther's rapid utterance are accurately supplied by QJ». 4. For I and my people [(E1 + of the house of Israel] have been sold [2F1 + for naught] unto destruction, slaughter, and annihilation; [Jos. 262 + and on this account I make my petition.] Lit. to de- stroy, to slay, and to annihilate. The same language is used in the King's edict (313). The expression sell into the hand for deliver up to enemies is a favourite one with the editor of Judges (214 49, etc.). Here the author is thinking of Haman's offer and the King's refusal (3 s- lI). — And if only we had been sold as slaves and as maids, [3 + groaning] / should have kept silent, [L + so as not to trouble my lord,] [Jos. 2C3 J + for the evil would have been bearable,] for the enemy is not sufficient for the injury of the King.] This last clause is one of the most difficult in the book. No satis- factory rendering has yet been proposed. For suggestions in regard to its interpretation and emendation, see the following critical note. 5. And King Xerxes said [(E2 + to an interpreter,] and he said to Queen Esther]. The verse has two beginnings, due doubtless to a combination of alternate readings. The Vrss. omit the second ESTHER DENOUNCES HAMAN 259 clause wholly or in part. ©2 and Meg. 16a help out the abnormal construction by inserting an interpreter. The fact that the King addresses himself to Esther gives Haman no opportunity to justify himself. — Who is it, and where is he, [SI1 + the shameless, guilty, and rebellious man,] whose heart has impelled him to do thus?] [L + to degrade the emblem of my sovereignty so as to cause thee fear?] Impelled is lit. filled, cf. Acts 5*, "Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" [L -f- And when the Queen saw that it seemed dreadful to the King, and that he hated the wrong-doer, she said, Be not angry, my lord! It is enough if I have gained thy pity. Enjoy the feast! To-morrow I will act in accordance with thy command. And the King adjured her to tell him who had dared to do thus, and with an oath he promised to do for her whatever she wished.] 6. And Esther said, An enemy and foe, this wicked Haman, [2I1 + who wishes to slay thee this evening in thy bedchamber, and who even to-day has asked to be clothed with a royal garment, and to ride upon thy horse, and to place the golden crown upon his head, and to rebel against thee, and to take away thy kingdom from thee. But the heavenly voice brought to pass in that hour that honour was ren- dered to the righteous Mordecai, my paternal uncle, the son of J air, son of Shimei, son of Shemida', son of Ba'ana, son of Elah, son of Micha, son of Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of King Saul, son of Kish, son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Bekhorath, son of Aphiya, son of She- harim, son of Uzziah, son of Sason, son of Michael, son of Eliel, son of 'Ammihud, son of Shephatiah, son of Penuel, son of Pithah, son of Melokh, son of Jerubba'al, son of Jeruham, son of Hananiah, son of Zibdi, son of Elpa'al, son of Shimri, son of Zebadiah, son of Remuth, son of Hashom, son of Shehorah, son of 'Uzza, son of Guza, son of Gera, son of Benjamin, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, whom the wicked Haman sought to hang {cf. ©2 on i5);] [(^-{-therefore is his name called Ha-man (this is the one), for this is the one who has wished to lay hands upon the Jewish people, who are called children of the Lord of all, and who has wished to slay them.] [Meg. 1 6a -f- All the time she pointed at Xerxes, but an angel came and turned her hand toward Haman.] The two parts of Esther's answer correspond to the two parts of the King's question. The fatal word is now spoken which will decide whether Haman or Esther has the greater influence with 20o ESTHER the King. The enemy is a standing title of Haman (cf. 7* and the synonymous word 310 81 910 • 24). As a descendant of Agag (31), he was characterized by an inveterate hostility to the Jews. — Haman meanwhile was in terror [Jl + straightway] before the King and the Queen]. He might well be terrified, since he suddenly dis- covered that he had affronted both the King and the Queen; the King, by condemning his wife to death; the Queen, by attempt- ing to destroy her and her people. 14. *in dii;] a nominal clause at the beginning of a sentence (Kau. § n6w); followed by pf. — vsy] ^oolLq^ &: om. 3ILd (exc. N °. a ■«, 249, 93& under *). — >DnDi] j^orj £>: rts L. — Y?nn] regince fi: om. L<6 (exc. n c- am«, 936 under *, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236, 249). — lJTjn] 7rap^ L: 'arrived,' as 43- »< 817 91- 26.— frnan] i?*>/i. 'hastened,' as Qa/ a9 814.— mark] om. & L SI 05 (exc. n c * mB> 93& under *). — pn] eum 3 L. — "WW - nnDN] Acai ovtus IXapddr] L. — nrDs] regina 3: + ^ (3aS-ta'>i] Kal iropevdels avtireae h &pq L. — mnt5»S] ^IuV' &: ad ccenam K. — dj;] ^|-a^? &. — nntw] om. 3 L E <& (exc. H •»•• n^, 936 under *). — naSnn] eo It: avrCov L. 2. nDNM]pr./a^Mwg5/H:nnDxS]ei3: + reginamft:om.A. — nncoa-Dj] ws 5£ irporjyev ij wpdiroais L. — «Jtffl or a dj] Haupt deletes. — dj] om. C<£ (exc. n e- », 93& under *). — ovs] om. 44 £ — wrrl\ en &. — nna'D3] />05/- gwaw incaluerat 3: » for 2 &: in bona propinatione 3j. — pn] om. L H (5 (exc. N c- », 936 under *) : + ti &mi> /cai (g (t£ &tW yni] -|- >»^V &: -f o-oi (Si: -f ft&s 1C: om. L. 3. i;m] om. L 44, 106. — irD»] tifo 3: om. (I (exc. n c&b1«,up, 936 under *). — nafeon] om. 3 L SI (exc. n c- am&, 936 under *): 6 \a6$ /tou L. — »rfa«»2] 2 essentia {cf. 47), according to Wild., Sieg., i.e., 'life' is identical with 'request.' According to Bert., Keil, Rys., it is 3 of the price; according to Haupt, 3 of the instrument. — "•Djn] Kal 6 \670s /xov (g (a few codd. Xo6s): Kal rb edvos L. — »P»p33] rrjs ipvxv* (Jj0V L« 4. -\>nwrh] \*l ^^ ^: ets airwXdav : om. 21 L. — U"OD3] om. L ?j (g (exc. K «• ■ me, 936 under *). — Tumnn] nal Trapr/Kovaa (g: Kal irapdipovs 52: /cat 7rapi7*cas (4, Aid.: Kai -wapoiKOvcra 106: *al iraprjKofoas loSa, 243, 248, 249, C: ko.1 ovk ifdeXop aTrayyeiXcu L: om. ffi. — "poll— *3j nunc autem hostis noster est rujus crudelitas redundat in regent 31: ov yap #£ios 6 5td/3o\os rrjs atiXijs rod /3a \lM> f-»->* r I ^V^V &; TrapeicaXei r£ TOtrrwi' d7raXXa7^j/ai Jos.: pDHO Np^D P*S DnN ndSdt NpnjKa nnm QI1: na^in Njjtoa »ir p*n» $o:n S">jn mS on* ®s. These all presuppose the text of M. The additions in L 3 Jos. look like conflate readings containing a translation of % in which ~tf is rendered 'calamity': tva p.rj Xvinfjau} rbv tdipibv pav L: esset tolerabile malum J: pLtrpiovyap Tovrorb nanbv Jos. In this passage most comm. assume that, "Wn means the enemy, as in 76 and everywhere else in Est. Their trans- lations then vary according to the meaning that they put upon ni.tr 'equal' and WJ 'injury.' Meg. 16a renders, for the enemy is not satis- fied with the loss of the King; i.e., he was jealous of Vashti and killed her, now he is jealous of me and wishes to kill me. Similarly Mar., not con- tent with plundering the King's treasury, he must needs kill the King's subjects; Osi.,/or the enemy would not then cause loss to tlie King, i.e., if we were made slaves, I should still be kept alive; Jun. & Trem., since the enemy proposes nothing for {averting) the loss of the king; Sol. b. Melekh, Drus., Grot., Pise, Vat., Cler., Ramb., Ges., Will., AV., RV., most modern Vrss., although the enemy cannot compensate for the loss of the King, i.e., cannot make up the tribute that will cease when the Jews are killed; Bert., Keil, Haupt, for the enemy is not worth troubling the King about; Schu.,/or {the punishing of ) the enemy is less important than {the averting of) the injury to the King. All of these translations are un- satisfactory, since they give no reason for Esther's keeping silence, as the context requires. Most of them demand the supplying before them of the words but I cannot keep silence, which are not in the text. All as- sume artificial meanings either for ■•?, for rni?, or for pu. IE., Dieu., Pise, Drus., Buhl., al. suggest reading n| 'adversity,' 'calamity,' in- stead of nx 'enemy,' and translate for the calamity is not so great as the injury of the King, or, for the calamity would not be sufficiently great to trouble the King about it; but this is just as unsatisfactory as the other renderings. "\x never has the meaning of 'calamity' in Est., and it is very doubtful whether pn injury, can be weakened into meaning an- 262 ESTHER noyance to the King through mentioning the business, as several modern comm. assume (but see Haupt, a. /.). The text is probably corrupt. Oet., Wild., read qjfljn pm mir nSxn pg >r, 'for the deliverance is not worth the injury of the King,' but this does not relieve the difficulty. There is an ancient corruption of the text at this point for which no satis- factory emendation has yet been proposed. — pna] so B2: pna Ba. G. 5. nsso)] Kai idvfubdr) L. — tmwrm] om. L 1C (& (exc. N c a me, g^,b under *): Haupt deletes. — -irfoi2] om. IE n] e£ cw/ws potentice J: om. L1E(S (exc. n c- ame, 936 under *). — **!?>?] Qfl* perf . of the transitive form of the vb. fc^p (Kau. § 74 g) with suf. Jahn, Haupt, read N^p. 6. nDNm] Kai dapa-Z/craa-a el-rrev L. — Tl t^N] 6 \J/ev8T]s ovroffi L. — IS*] here pointed with Pathach; Ju. 74 Mn (see Baer, a. /.). Pred. put first for emphasis. — 3"iNi] + noster 3: regis fi: 6 0t\os (rot; L: om. (j£» (exc. M c- ame, 936 *). — pni] ^worf z7/e audiens 3: Aman autem audiens verba C— pm-endof v.] om.L-|Dm] Me J.— njhj] so Nl S N2 Br. C B1 B2 G: njhj Ba. — nya:] A/^/t. only in late books, e.g., 1 Ch. 2130 Dn. C17. This clause and those that follow as far as idn>i (8b) are circumstantial clauses with participles. — fiabcm - >jdS?:] vultum regis ac reginceferre non sustinens J: et cecidit vultus suus C THE KING SENTENCES HAM AN TO DEATH (77-10). 7. [®l + And the King lifted his eyes and looked, and saw ten angels like unto the sons of Haman cutting down the trees in the inner garden.] Now the King was rising in his wrath from the wine-drinking, [iC + flinging away his napkin,] [Vrss. + to go] into the palace-garden [S1 + to see wThat this thing was (similarly Meg. 1 6a).] Rising into is a pregnant construction for rising to go into. On wine-drinking, see 56 72. On palace and garden, see i5. As to the reason for the King's going into the garden opinions differ. W2 supposes that it was to work off his anger by cutting down trees; Men., that it was to avoid sight of the hated Haman ; Lyra, Haupt, to take time to think about his decision ; Drus., because he was still friendly to Haman and hesitated to condemn him; Bon., Bert., Oet., Sieg., because he was uncomfort- ably heated with wine and anger, and wished to cool off in the outer air; Schu., Stre., because of the natural restlessness of anger. The true reason is probably to give the author a chance to insert XERXES SENTENCES HAM AN 263 the episode in v. 8. — But Haman was staying to beg Queen Esther [(E1 + for mercy] upon his life, [Jos. 265 + and to entreat her to pardon his offences ,]for he saw that evil was determined against him by the King.] On staying, cf. 51. The ellipsis after beg is rightly supplied by S1 (cf. 4s). Determined, lit. completed, is used of something that is fully settled in a person's mind (cf. 1 S. 20 7 y 2517 Ez. 513). It is clear to Haman, at least, that the King's going into the garden is not to devise means of saving him, but to think out some terrible punishment to inflict upon him. 8. And as the King was returning [(E1 + in his wrath] from the palace-garden to the banquet-hall, [Meg. 16a, (&l + behold the angel Gabriel gave the wicked Haman a push in sight of the King, and] Haman [L + was dismayed and] was lying prostrate [L + at the feet of Queen Esther] upon the couch on which Esther [L & + was reclining.] The King's wrath is not abated by his visit to the garden, but impels him to return in a few minutes to the banquet- hall that he has just left. Meanwhile Haman, in an agony of fear, has fallen at the feet of Esther as she reclines upon her couch, to beg her to save him. Falling down and laying hold of the feet was a common attitude of suppliants (cf. 83 1 S. 25" 2 K. 4", also frequently in the Assyrian inscriptions). It was impossible under the circumstances for the King to misunderstand the gesture ; but he had come back with the determination to kill Haman, and was ready to put the worst construction on anything that he might do. This interpretation seems more natural than that the author means to represent the King as hitherto in doubt, but now decided by Haman's supposed assault upon the Queen. On couch, see 1 8. — And, [21 Jos. + seeing him upon Esther's couch,] the King [SI ®» + was enraged and] said, [Meg. 16a -f Woe within and woe with- out !] [Jos. + O wickedest of all men !] [L 21 + Is not his crime against the kingdom enough?] Is he also (going) to violate the Queen while I am present in the house? [(H1 + Now, all peoples, nations, and tongues, judge what ought to be done with him?] Also is used with reference to Haman's first crime against Esther. Not satisfied with attacking her life, he must also attack her honour. Esther has now a chance to intercede for Haman, but she does not take it. All his entreaties are in vain, and she looks on in silence 264 ESTHER while he is condemned to death. The older commentators labour hard to show that Haman deserved no mercy, and that Esther would have done wrong to intercede for him; but it must be ad- mitted that her character would have been more attractive if she had shown pity toward a fallen foe. The author might have rep- resented her as interceding for Haman, even if the King did not grant her request; but such an idea is far from his mind. Here, as everywhere, he gloats over the destruction of the heathen. — Before the word left the King's mouth they had covered Hainan's face.] The watchful eunuchs need nothing more than the King's last remark to see that Haman is condemned to death, and they cover his face preparatory to leading him out to execution. Cur- tius (vi. 822) mentions this as a Greek custom; and Livy (i. 26") as a Roman custom. It is not attested among the Persians, but is not improbable. Cf. 612, where Haman covers his head as a sign of grief (see critical note). 9. Then said Harbona, one of the eunuchs [Jl + who stood] be- fore the King]. This is the same person doubtless as Harbona of i10, although the spelling is slightly different (see p. 67). Those who have hitherto flattered Haman are now ready to give him a shove when they see that he is falling. — There is the gallows too that Haman erected for [Vrss. + hanging] Mordecai who spoke a good word on behalf of the King [S1 + by whose means also he was saved from being killed. That gallows is] standing in the house of Haman. [(&codd., Jos.266 + This he knew, because he had seen the gallows in the house of Haman when he was sent to summon him to the royal banquet, and inquiring about it from one of the servants, he learned for what it was intended (cf. 614).] Too adds another reason to those already given by the King why Haman should be executed, and incidentally suggests a method of carrying out the sentence. On Mordecai's service, see 222 62; on the erection of the gallows, 514. — [L SF1 + Now, if it seems good to the King, let the gallows be brought from his house, and let him be lifted up and fastened upon it] fifty cubits high. [Meg. 16a + The wicked Harbona had been involved in Hainan's plans; but when he saw that their scheme could not be carried out, he took to flight (similarly ©-).] [Jos.267 + When the King heard this, he XERXES SENTENCES HAM AN 265 determined that Haman should be put to death in no other way than that which he had devised for Mordecai.] And the King said [®2 + to Mordecai] [SF1 + go] hang him upon it, [20 + and his wife and his ten sons.] The King is easily influenced by the suggestions of his courtiers (cf. i21 24 311 55 610 75). The author in- tends to represent him as a weak character moved by the whim of the moment. The poetic justice of hanging Haman on the gallows that he had reared for Mordecai naturally catches his fancy. [®2 + So the word of Holy Scripture was fulfilled for Mordecai, "When the Lord is pleased with a man's ways, even his enemies shall depend upon him." And the King answered and said to Mordecai, 0 Mordecai, the Jew, who hast saved the King from being killed, rise, go and take Haman, the wicked enemy, the oppressor of the Jews, and hang him on the gallows which he prepared for himself. Inflict a terri- ble penalty upon him, and do to him whatever seems good to thee. Then Mordecai went out from before the King and took Haman from the gate of the King's house. And Mordecai spoke to Haman, saying, Come with me, Haman, thou foe and wicked enemy and oppressor of the Jews, that we may hang thee upon the gallows which thou hast erected for thy- self. Then the wicked Haman answered the righteous Mordecai, Before they bring me to the gallows, I beg thee, righteous Mordecai, that thou wilt not hang me as they hang common criminals. I have despised great men, and governors of provinces have waited upon me. 1 have made kings to tremble at the word of my mouth, and with the utterance of my lips I have frightened provinces. I am Haman; my name was called Viceroy of the King, Father of the King. I beg thee, righteous Mordecai, not to do to me as I thought to do to thee. Spare my honour, and do not kill me or hew me in pieces like Agag my father. Thou art good, Mordecai; deal with me according to thy goodness, and do not take my life; do not kill me like a branch so that my life shall be destroyed. Do not remember against me the hatred of Agag, nor the jealousy of Amalek. Do not regard me as an enemy in thy heart and do not cherish a grudge against me, as Esau my father cherished. Great wonders have been wrought for thee as they were wrought for thy fathers when they crossed the sea. My eyes are too dim to see thee, and my mouth I am not able to open before thee, because I have taken the ad- vice of my friends and of Zeresh my wife against thee. I beg thee to spare my life, my lord Mordecai, the righteous, and do not blot out my name suddenly like that of Amalek my ancestor, and do not hang my gray head upon the gallows. But if thou art determined to kill me, cut off my head with the King's sword, with which they kill all the nobles 266 ESTHER of the provinces. Then Hainan began to cry and to weep, but Mordecai did not give heed to him. And when Haman saw that no attention was paid to his words, he set up a wail and a weeping in the midst of the garden of the palace (followed by an address of Haman to the trees who refuse in turn to furnish a gallows for him until the cedar is reached).] 10. So they Imnged Haman upon the gallows which he had erected for Mordecai, [249 + who spoke on behalf of the King,] [HI + and his wife and his ten sons.] And the wrath of the King subsided], cf 21. [Jos. *8 + Which event compels me to wonder at the divine provi- dence, and to learn his wisdom and justice, not merely in punishing the wickedness of Haman, but in bringing it about that he should suffer the same penalty that he had devised for another; so teaching, that whatever evil one plans for another, he is unconsciously preparing for himself first of all. Haman, accordingly, who had not used discreetly the honour that he had received from the King, was destroyed in this manner.] 7. lnnm] eKdvpuos dt yevdfxevos L: om. 21(1 (exc. n c- »*■«, 03& under *) — pn nniPD?:] de loco suo 21: de loco convivii 3: /cat irXrjadels dpyijs L: + et intravit J: + * nivS &: + Kal 9jv irepnraTCbv L: -f- et exiit 21. — jn'an tjj] hortum arboribus consitum J: rbv ktjttov (& (+ rbv L. — iSdhi] qui cum 3. — njJD] om. L. — jn-on] nemoribus consito + et intrasset 31: om. L 21 (& (exc. n c- ame, 936 under *). — pn - *?*] ad locum suum 21 : om. Q> (exc. n c- a ■*, 936 under *). — ]vn)]reperitAman 3. — Sdj] + ^7rt robs irddas 'Eadijp 7-775 (3a 'Ap.ap Kal p.7) ^-fjrw Kal ovtus dir^yero'L: om. 21: 'A/idv 5£ d/cotfo-as Sierpdiri] t£ Tpocrcbirip (g (pr. 6 \670s £i;7}\t)eu £k tov a-rd/iaTos tov pacriXius H c * m*. MORDECAI SUCCEEDS HAMAN 267 936 under *). icn] Condamin {Rev. Bibl. vii. pp. 258-261) and Perles (Analekten, p. 32) propose on the basis of (S to read ^on 'his face grew red' (cf. Ps. 34s Jb. 620, 7ry). Haupt adopts this emendation. It is not necessary with Sieg. to regard ion (pf. with 1) as an Aramaizing construction instead of impf. with 1 consec. The clause is circumstantial and expresses the idea that the covering had taken place before the word was fairly out of the King's mouth. 9. D^DnDn] -f- qui stabantS: + i^]o ) al^^j &: tu>v rraiduv avrov L: — ihvn ^JC1"1] Trpbs rbv fiaaChia 7]+r$ \a\ricraPTi wept tov PacrtXtus 249. — njDiy] pausal form for njp^ (Stade § 401 b). MORDECAI IS INSTALLED IN THE PLACE OF HAMAN (81-2). 1. On that day King Xerxes gave Queen Esther the property of Haman, the enemy of the Jews [S1 + and the men of his house, and all his treasures, and all his riches.] The property of criminals was confiscated by the state, according to Her. iii. 129; Jos. Ant. xi. 17. Haman's property the King bestows upon Esther in com- pensation for the injury done her. Property, lit. house, is used in the sense of all a man\ belongings, as Gn. 3Q4 441- 4 1 K. 13 8 Jb. 815; so rightly the addition of 8k On enemy, see 310. — And Mordecai came before tne King], i.e., he was raised to the rank of the high officials who saw the King's face (i10- 14 79). — For Esther had disclosed what his relationship to her was.] Now for the first time the King discovers that Mordecai is a connection of Esther ; but cf. 27 u 22 4416. How the King could have remained in ig- norance of this fact until this late date is as extraordinary as Haman's ignorance up to the moment when the blow falls, To 268 ESTHER his relationship to Esther Mordecai owes his present promotion. His service to the King has already been rewarded. 2. And the King drew off his signet [&1 + ring] which he had taken away from Haman [L + and with which his life was sealed, and the King said to Esther: Did he plan also to hang Mordecai who saved me from the hand of the eunuchs? He did not know that Esther was his relative on the father's side.] And he gave it to Mordecai] On the signet-ring, see 310. The removal of the ring must have preceded the leading of Haman out to execution; but since it was not mentioned in 7 9, it is inserted here as an after- thought. The bestowal of this ring made Mordecai grand vizier and clothed him with all the powers that Haman had hitherto possessed (310-15). — And Esther appointed Mordecai [ST1 + master and steward] over Haman' 's property.] According to 39- » 511 o10 the estate must have been very great, so that the administration of it and disposal of its revenues gave Mordecai wealth suitable to his new dignity. How much he possessed before, we are not told, only that he had leisure to sit most of the time in the King's gate. [L + And he said to him, What dost thou wish? and I will do it for thee.] 1. D"-nrvn-Dr2] om. L. — rmtrrm] om. 44, 71, 106: Haupt deletes. — noSon] om. s rbv Mapdoxcuop (tr. aft. 82 OTIdS) L: ko\ Mapdoxaios Trpoa-eKX^dr) virb tov (3curi\£us (&. — rh - "o] om. L. — inDN n-njn] cogno- verat rex H: + r<£ /ScwtXei 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 236. — nS son hd] &tl ivoi- KelwTcu airy (g (+ MapSoxcuos 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236): quod Mar- dochceus erat de genere regince 21 : quod esset patruus suus JL 2. >r\yyd\ -f- Hi Sj?d K 18, 95; R 42, 405: + airb tt}s xeLP^ o-vtov L- — pnD - -iu>n] om. L. — Tayn] + rex 10. — iu;n] ' to transfer from one person to another' (cf. Nu. 277), here from Haman to the King. — "O-nDS romi] om. L. — "OTTO — DOT))] Kai exapicaro ai>T$ L. — pn] suam 3. ESTHER OBTAINS PERMISSION TO COUNTERACT HAMAN'S EDICT AGAINST THE JEWS (83s). 3. And Esther spoke again before the King]. The overthrow of Haman and the elevation of Mordecai do not satisfy Esther so long as Haman's edict of destruction remains unrevoked. Al- ESTHER OBTAINS A NEW EDICT 269 though Mordecai held the signet-ring, he did not venture to use it to save the Jews until express permission had been obtained. From v. 4 it appears that Esther once more risked her life in going to the King unsummoned (cf. 5'). It is hard to see why this was necessary, now that Mordecai was grand vizier and could bring all matters before the King. It is also hard to see why Esther should run this risk when the day for slaughtering the Jews was set nearly a year later (see on 411). The author wishes to magnify Esther's patriotism by representing her as willing to risk her life twice for her nation. — And she fell at his feet, and wept, and be- sought him], Esther's supplication is much more passionate in this case than in 73-4 because her petition concerns not herself but her people (cf 7*). — To counteract the evil of Haman the Agagite and his [Jl + wicked] plan which he had devised against the Jews.] Counteract is lit. cause to pass over. On Agagite, see 31; on the plan, see 3"*". 4. And the King extended to Esther the golden sceptre [Jl -f in his hand as a sign of clemency,] and Esther arose and stood before the King.] See on 52. 5. And she said, If it seems good to the King, and if I have won his favour, and the thing is proper in the King's opinion, and I am pleasing unto him]. The first two formulas of introduction have been used frequently before (cf. i19 54- 8 73), the last two are new. — [®l + Let him make a decree and] let it be written to revoke the dispatches, the device of Haman son of Hammedathd, the Agagite, which he wrote to cause the destruction of the Jews that are in all the King's provinces.] Revoke is lit. cause to return (cf. 88). On dispatches, cf. i22 313 810 g20- 25- 30. On the contents of these dispatches, cf. 312-14. The added words, the device of Haman, bring out the thought that the former edict had not been issued for the good of the state, but to gratify Haman's private vengeance. 6. For how can I gaze upon the calamity that has befallen my people, and how can I gaze upon the destruction of my kindred ?], i.e., I cannot be a silent spectator while this tragedy is being enacted. Here Esther reiterates the petition that she began to present in 73- 4, from which the King's attention was diverted by his wrath against Haman (cf. 7s). Kindred is used as in 210 20. 27O ESTHER On the similarity of this v. to Gn. 44", see Rosenthal, ZATW. xv. p. 281 (see on 69). 7. [Jos. 271 + And the King promised her that he would not do anything that would be displeasing to her, or that would be con- trary to her desire.] And King Xerxes said to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew. [2J2 + Behold, thou didst wrong at the beginning, when I asked thee saying, From what race art thou sprung ? that I might make thy family kings and rulers; and when I asked, From what stock art thou? that I might make thy family generals and polemarchs ; that thou didst say, I know not, for my father and mother died leaving me a little girl.] Esther alone comes before the King and she alone is addressed by him, so that the words and Mordecai the Jew look like an in- terpolation. They are omitted by (& L 21 j$ Jos., but cf. v. 8. — Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther, and him they have hanged upon the gallows [21 + with all his house] because he laid hands upon the Jews], cf. 710-81. The King reminds Esther of the two favours already granted, not to suggest that he has done as much as can reasonably be expected, but to show that he is kindly disposed toward the Jews, and is ready to do all that the law will allow to avert the consequences of Haman 's edicts. [ (exc. n e- a, 936 under *, 71, 74, 76, 120, 236). — -mm] finite vb. instead of inf. after qoirn. — l^cn] eum 3. — •pni] }-kikSo &: Kal i)£fou (g. — tnaVTID -*J3rnj om. H. — pnnm] om. jJNn] om. (£ (exc. 936 under *). — nm- Dnvwi] Haupt deletes as a tertiary gloss derived from 9". — ina»no] om. (& (exc. 936 under *). — Vjj aan ncs] de quoimpetraverat Aman adversus genus S: + av/xirdiTi 936 -j-. 4. om. L. — iScni] #fe e# wore 3.— -ipdnS] om. 3 44- — ®2"W] BJ^£ Ba.: tww Var. Or. (Ginsburg) N1 S. — an?n] 4- f) ijv iv xeiPl ajjToC 9Z° under -J- . — DpnVj clL* Zsw^j-oo 0. — ~\r\Dx] *7/a 3: om. 106. — "j^Dn*] eum 3. 6. iDNni] /cai e?ire(y) a] an Aram, word found only in late Heb. (cf. Ec. n6), and ordinarily used of the ceremonially clean (cf. Siegfried, Neuheb. Gram. §44). — y?Dn*] mJL — PPJU ^n naitoij om. 3#. — ana\] obsecro ut novis epistolis 3: wOo&aJ &: TtftfBjrm (&: mittantur ate litter a ft — a^cn1-] d.Troe 3.— hn]+Sd many codd. (KR) &©1©2?!.— onwn] cos 3. — T^OM nuno Saa] ^p tt) fiaaikdq. n>N-n] finite vb. after Saw instead of the usual inf. cstr. or inf. cstr. with 1 (cf. Kau. § 112 p). — njna] a nm means to look intently upon something that inspires joy or horror. Cf. Gn. 2116 "gaze upon the death of the child." — nxdi] here only in the book in the sense of 'befall.' For this the au- thor generally uses mp (cf. 4* 613). — KJBi TTK] om. dH (exc. 936 *): et interfectionem 3. — nxep] Nxan K 245 R 196, Sebhir in some codd. — 272 ESTHER »m^iD-nacr»m] om. 3. — *JV*ni 2] vwdijvcu (&: liberari H. — J13N3 sola H: in 95 ]~ox. The correct form is p3N. On the formation, see Ols. § 215 b; Stade, § 274 b. — Tn^c] de patria mea £. 7. nvm-nbM*l] om. L. — anwrw] so Oc. (Ginsburg): »nwnn] Or. N1 S Br. B1: om. $ ra Kara ttjv (iavChelav L. — njn] om. 3 C — no] Trdrra rd virdpxovra (£►: o, nnes facilitates C — nnDN1?] «al ixa-p^vdfirjv voi (&: tibi 3C&. — D**"1VM — VWl] om. L. — lSn] yw5« a^gi 3: iicpttMava (&: suspendi ?C. — Dmno-Sj?] Haupt deletes to correspond with his restoration of 2221. — IT* Sp] + aususestll. — D"Tim3-nkr] cogitavit super me mala inferre regno meo £. — '3 "P nSti'] as 221 36 62 92. — a»nn>3] omrra Q. 8-13. tr. aft. v. 14 L. — DriNi] Kal 6 (SavChebs evexelpive t$ Map5oxa£w L: om. DnN C DHK is emphatic both in its insertion and in its position. — 13 no] ypd 0. — 3fl3J n^N 3ns] &ra ypdQerai (&: qucecunque scribuntur C — 3ro] see on i22. — 3noj] mittebantur 3. — DM Y?Dn] e7rird^avTos tou fiavChtuis (& C — Dinrm] inf. abs. instead of finite vb. as 313 and often in Est. On the formation, cf. Kau. § 63 c. Haupt regards this as impossible in a coordinated relative clause and reads onnj as in 312. — -[Sen4] illius 3: M &. — 3">!ynL'] avrots avreiirciv MORDECAI SENDS OUT DISPATCHES TO COUNTERACT THE EDICT OF HAMAN (8914a). 9. And the King's scribes [Jl + and secretaries] were called at that time]. On the scribes, see 312. Mordecai does not delay in availing himself of the King's permission. — In the third month, that is, the month Sivan., on its twenty-third day], i.e., two months and ten days after the issuing of Haman's edict of destruction (312). The intervening time is supposed to be filled with the events of 41-82. On the Babylonian names of the months, see 216. — And a dispatch was prepared in accordance with all that Mordecai commanded, unto the Jews, and unto the satraps, and the governors, and the officials [2F1 + who had been appointed rulers] of the provinces that {extended) from India all the way to Kush, 127 MORDECAI SENDS OUT DISPATCHES 273 provinces, to every single province in its script, and to every sin^ 'e race in its language]. See on 312 and i1, which are in almost verbal agreement with this passage. Just as the dispatches were formerly prepared at Haman's dictation, so now at the dictation of Mordecai. — And unto the Jews in their script and their language]. Incredibly large as the number of scribes was that Haman required, Mordecai required still more, for he had to send also to the Jews in all the provinces (see on i22 and 312). From this passage Blau draws the unwarranted inference that, as late as the time of the writing of this book, the Jews had not yet adopted the Aramaic alphabet, but still made use of the old "Phoenician" character. Baer calls attention to the fact that this is the longest v. in the Hagiographa, containing 43 words and 192 letters. 10. And he wrote in the name of King Xerxes and sealed it with the King's signet [(E1 + ring.] See on 312b. — And he sent dis- patches by the mounted couriers]. These are the well-known Persian royal messengers, who have been mentioned already in 318, q.v. (cf. 315 814). Mounted couriers are lit. runners on the horses. — Riding on the coursers, the royal steeds, bred from the stud, [©1 -f whose spleens were removed, and the hoofs of the soles of their feet were cloven.] The word translated coursers is used in Mi. i13 of a chariot-horse, and in 1 K. 5s (Eng. 428) of the royal horses. It must, therefore, denote a superior sort of horse. The next word 'ahashfrdnim is probably a loan-word from the Pers., derived from khshatra, 'kingdom' (cf Spiegel, Altpers. Keilin- schr., p. 215), and means something like 'royal steeds.' The old Vrss. can make nothing out of it and leave it untranslated. The doctors of the Talmud also confess their ignorance of its meaning, and say, "If we read the Book of Esther, although we do not understand this; why should not other Israelites read it, even if they understand no Hebrew?" (Meg. i&a.) The word trans- lated stud is also uncertain (see note). These fast horses are not mentioned in the sending out of Haman's decree, 313- 15. Ap- parently they are granted as a special favour to Mordecai, in order that the news of their deliverance may reach the Jews more speedily. 11. To the effect that the King granted [®» + help] to the Jews, 18 274 ESTHER who were in every single city to assemble and to stand for their life]. According to the edict of 313, they were to submit quietly to being killed. That edict cannot be revoked, but now they are allowed to defend themselves. The knowledge that the King favours them will strengthen them and will weaken the attack of their enemies, so that there is hope that they may come out safely. Thus far the edict is what one would expect, if the previous law could not be repealed. On stand for their lives, cf. 916 Dn. 121. — To destroy, to slay, and to annihilate every armed force of race or city that might be hostile to them]. Cf. 313. The clause contains a series of ob- jects to granted. From 813 o1-16 it appears that the Jews are here permitted not merely to defend themselves against attack, but also to carry on an aggressive campaign against their enemies. A contrary opinion is maintained by Haupt only by an arbitrary changing of the text. The former situation is now reversed (91); whereas before the Jews had to submit to being killed by their foes, the foes have now to submit to being killed by the Jews. Improbable as it is that Xerxes should devote the whole Jewish race to destruction, it is vastly more improbable that he should give up his Persian subjects to be massacred by the Jews. — Children and women] might grammatically be the subject of the preceding in- finitives, but this gives no good sense. Sieg. suggests that it is another object to granted, and translates granted children and women and their goods as plunder; but in that case we should ex- pect their children and their women. This construction is contrary to the analogy of 313, where the Jewish women and children are to be killed. Accordingly, in spite of the absence of a conj., we must regard children and women, like armed force, as objects to kill, slay, and annihilate. The older comm. are more troubled than the author over the question, whether it was right for the Jews to kill the women and children. Bon. infers from the statement that the Jews did not take the spoil (o10- 16), th-dt a fortiori they did not kill the women and children; but it is questionable whether this in- ference is valid. — And to plunder their goods]. See on 313. 12. On one day in all King Xerxes' provinces, [L + And the letter which Mordecai sent out had the following cor . tents: Haman sent you letters to the effect that you should hasten to MORDECAI SENDS OUT DISPATCHES 275 destroy quickly for me the treacherous race of the Jews; but I, Mordecai, declare to you that he who did this has been hanged before the gates of Susa, and his property has been confiscated, because he wished to slay you] On the thirteenth of the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar,] see on 313b. ADDITION E. MORDECAI 'S LETTER. At this point (8 H insert Mordecai's letter, E1-24 (J and Eng. Apoc, Ad. Est. 161-24). L inserts after 87. Jos. gives it in a much modified form. ©2 also inserts a letter similar in substance. In some indirect way it must be derived from (&. For a critical ap- paratus to the Greek text, see Pat on in HM . ii. pp. 39-42. 'The following is a copy of the letter: The great King Artaxerxes unto the governors of countries in 127 provinces from India unto Ethiopia, and unto those that are concerned with our affairs, greeting. 2Many who are honoured too much with the great bounty of their benefactors, desire yet more, 3and endeavour not only to hurt our subjects, but also, not being able to bear abundance, undertake to plot against those that do them good: 4and not only take thankful- ness away from among men, but also, being lifted up with boastful words, as though they had never received good, they think to escape the evil-hating justice of God, who always sees all things. 5Oftentimes also the fair speech of those that are put in trust to manage their friends' affairs, has caused many that are in authority to be partakers of innocent blood, and has involved them in remediless calamities: "beguiling with the false deceit of their lewd disposition the innocent good will of princes. 7Now you may see this, not so much from the ancient histories that have come down to us, as you may, if you search, what has been wickedly done through the pestilent behaviour in your presence of those that are un- worthily placed in authority. 8And we must take care for the time to come, to render our kingdom quiet and peaceable for all men, 9both by paying no attention to slanders, and by always judging things that come before our eyes with the greatest possible gentleness. 10For Haman the son of Hammedatha, a Macedonian, an alien in truth from the Persian blood, and far distant from our goodness, being received as a guest by us, "had so far obtained the favour that we shew toward every nation, that 276 ESTHER he was called our father, and was continually honoured by all men, as the next person unto the royal throne. 12But he, not bearing his high estate, went about to deprive us of our kingdom and our life, 13 having by manifold and cunning deceits sought the destruction both of Mor- decai, who saved our life, and continually procured our good, and also of Esther the blameless partaker of our kingdom, together with their whole nation. 14For by these means he thought, catching us unguarded, to transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. 15But we find that the Jews, whom this thrice guilty wretch has delivered to utter destruction, are no evil-doers, but live as citizens by most just laws: 16and that they are children of the most high and most mighty living God, who has established the kingdom both for us and for our progen- itors in the most excellent manner. 17 Wherefore ye shall do well not to put in execution the letters sent unto you by Haman the son of Ham- medatha. 18For he, that was the worker of these things, is hanged at the gates of Susa with all his family: God, who ruleth all things, speedily rendering vengeance to him according to his deserts. 19Therefore ye shall publish openly the copy of this letter in all places, to let the Jews live after their own laws, 20and to aid them, that on the aforesaid day, being the thirteenth day of the twelfth month Adar, they may defend themselves against those who set upon them in the time of their affliction. 21For Almighty God hath made this day to be a joy unto them, instead of the destruction of the chosen people. 22And ye shall, therefore, on the feast days called "Lots"* keep it a high day with all feasting: 23that both now and hereafter it may be safety for you and for the well-affected Persians: but for those who conspire against us a memorial of destruc- tion. 24Therefore every city or country whatsoever, which shall not do according to these things, shall be utterly destroyed without mercy with fire and sword; it shall be made not only unpassable for men, but also most hateful to wild beasts and fowls forever. 13. The contents of the edict (were), Let it be given out as law in every single province, published to all the races, that [f3]eral autem tempusH. — "•ts^tPn] rip irp&rtp <8 H (rpiTy m c. amg) 93^). — tt,-,n] om. &(6H. — |VD] S*ta 3: ^j-0-* $: Nto-d(j') (§> (Sioudi' M ■•*■*, 93ft): om. fr — noVa'a] ^v rerdpr-Q 249. — Dntrjn] om. H. — Uj tou auroi! erous (&: tou devripov erovs N *: rou auroO pnfpfe A, N, 76: ipsius mensis fj: -f- |^| **-> &. — anaWJ as^ao #• — TO] «^Dlo #: iir4 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236: om. H. — ^N-end of v.] om. L. — ^n] *\^» &. — VnV] om. ) &: Haupt follows & in this and the preceding reading. — &iQ~\-wnnri\principes'&: P - " ^^y\ft- rots oikop6- /iois (S: actoribus C — "H^i] + #wi prcesidebani 3f: raj? aarpair&p % (£. — nunnn] om. (g C — ntrs] om. g» ?£ (g (exc. n * a mg, 936). — tfio] + Sn sev- eral codd., K and R. — TUrxD '] satrapis C — nriDl njnD 2] gentium im- perantibus ft. — naroj] /card t^p eavrQp \tt-iv #: secundum H. — DJHDjn ij-''?^] oil a^ y^l j Vi\\c &: gentem et gentem secundum uniuscujusque eorum linguam H: om. c£w»»Z|o &: Kai £?0: Kai keep pay laa.ro L. — iSrn 2] tov /3a(rt- X^wsL: adrouCftlj. — n^i-end of v.] om. L. — n^i] koX e^air^areiXap (& (4£aTrtaTei\ev n c- ■ A). — DncD] om. 3E. — TO] 5td N]= 'that,' introducing the contents of the dispatches, as i19 2to34 4u 62, a late usage.— -|Spn-np« ']om. L: j n\s^ w£L>) |Z-jJ|#:ws iirtra&v (£ H. — DnwV) avrocs (g fi: rb edvos avrov L. — niTN 2] om. <& L %. — -pjn ity Soa] iv ird: Kara x^pas ZicaaTov avruv L: om. ft: |iJL.j.lc ^^^a^jj &. — 'Sripn1?] e/ fM unum proeciperent congregari 3: x/"?0"- 0cu rots i>6ttots ai)rrai 05 (-f d0a^- ^eti/ /cai rai *a£ cbroXatfeiv 936 under *). — nnSi] om. > many codd. KR, B2. — "OnSi] om. 3. — n^-im - Sd pn] to?s avridLicois aitrQv 05 (+ 7raVai' 8vvap.iv Xaou /cat x^Pas T0,'J dXifidvras avrotis M c. aing) q36 under *): owwes 3: v »l\n\ &. — S>n] c/. i3. Haupt de- letes.— dpn Dnxn] Kai to?s avTiK€ip.£voLS avrQv 05: Qa/ ptc. from "HI 'be hostile,' not from the noun nx 'enemy,' which cannot govern the ace. (BDB. 849, III.). Haupt changes unnecessarily to BUM on-vin ycf. Nu. io9). — naV-«|0] pr. o &: om. 05 (exc. n c. amg> g^ under *): Haupt deletes as a gloss derived from 318. — d^ji] -f* et universis domibus 3.— naS] -f- et constituta est 3. 12. cnwnK-ova] om. L. — inn ova] om. fi: om. 2 3. — nunc] t?? pa A. — m] om. #05 (exc. 93& under *). — njnn] T77 (3aiSj] om. 3: j-oso #: dipdaXpxxpavws 05. — D">Dpn W?J om. 305. — nvnSi] + 7rdvraj 05. — D^nmnJ onirpn Q. — DHinj;] o>Tnj; Q. — rvn dvS] om. 3. — DpjnV] iroKept,i}JincnNn - >3D^] om. 3 05 3C (exc. It «• • m&, 936 under *) : pr. laoatf )o &. — B^rWIWl] om. &: Haupt deletes. — inx>] om. H. — D^Snao] Q-aaJo #: festinanterft: Pu. ptc. pi. (c/. 29 6M). — o^imi] perferentesdl: b-*\^a\mrsn.^D #: ^TriTeXetj/ (5: icai 5tw/c6iievot iTTLreXeiv a c- a ms? 93^ under *. C/". 3]S 612: Jahn, Haupt, delete. — iSdh ~\2i2] Haupt deletes as a gloss derived from 31S. — nana] nuncia 3: rd Xry&MWd 05: pracepta C — iSnn] om. 3 0. — mni-end of v.] om. 44, 106, 107, 236: Haupt deletes as a scribal ex- pansion derived from 316. THE JEWS REJOICE 279 THE JEWS REJOICE OVER THEIR ESCAPE (8ub"17). 14b-15. Meanwhile the law had been given out in Susa the for- tress, and Mordecai had gone out [-3 + from the palace and] from the King's presence in a royal garment of violet and white]. On royal garment, see 68; on violet and white, see i6. — And a big golden crown]. The word crown is different from the one used for the royal turban in i11 217 68, but the idea is the same. Not only the King, but also his favourites were allowed to wear the royal head-dress, and in Mordecai's case this was specially large. — And a mantle of fine linen and purple]. See on 1 6. When Mor- decai received these decorations, we are not told, presumably at the time when he became grand vizier (81 f •). He is now privileged to wear continually what before he received for a short time only (6")- [SF1 + Rejoicing and glad of heart because of his great honour and abundant dignity, clothed in royal garments of wool, linen, and purple, with a chain of fine gold of Ophir in which were set pearls and precious stones, clad in a mantle made from the young of the bird of paradise (?) of the western sea, under which was a purple tunic with embroidery of all sorts of birds and fowls of the heavens, and this tunic was valued at 420 talents of gold. And he was girt about the loins with a girdle on which were fastened throughout its length beryl stones. His feet were shod with Parthian socks imported by the Macedonians, woven of gold and set with emeralds. A Median sword hung by his side, suspended on a chain of rings of gold, on which was engraved the city of Jerusalem, and on whose hilt the fortune of the city was depicted. A Median hel- met painted with various colours was put on his head, and above it was placed a great crown of Macedonian gold, and above the crown was placed a golden phylactery, in order that all peoples, nations, and tongues might know that Mordecai was a Jew, that the Scripture might be ful- filled where it is written, "And all peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is named upon thee." And when Mordecai went out from the gate of the King, the streets were strewn with myrtle, the court was shaded with purple extended on linen cords, and boys with garlanded heads, and priests holding trumpets in their hands, proclaimed, saying, "Whoever is not reconciled to Mordecai and reconciled to the Jews, shall be cut in pieces and his house shall be turned into a dung-hill." And the ten sons of Haman came with lifted hands, and spoke before the righteous Mordecai, saying, "He who gives wages to the Jews brings also the wages of the wicked upon their heads. This Haman our father 280 ESTHER was a fool because he trusted in his riches and in his honour. The humble Mordecai has defeated him through his fasting and his prayers." And the righteous Esther looked out at the window, for the Queen was not permitted to go among the people in the street. And Mordecai, turning his eyes, saw her and said, "Blessed be the Lord who did not give me a prey to their teeth." Esther answered, saying, "My help is from the Lord who made heaven and earth." Many people rejoiced at the fall of the wicked Haman and gave thanks and praise on account of the deliverance which was wrought for the Jews, and they celebrated the deliverance and the glory which the righteous Mordecai had at this time (similarly ©2, cf. ©2 on 611).] And [Jos. + when they saw him so honoured by the King, the Jews who were in] the city of Susa had shouted and rejoiced], in contrast to 31B, where the capital is perplexed at the edict of de- struction. Here, as in 315, the author ascribes to the whole popu- lation the emotions of the Jews. The city of Susa is here dis- tinguished from the fortress of Susa as in 315 4'- 6 69 (see on i6). 16. Unto the Jews there came light, and joy, and rejoicing, and honour.] Light is a figure for prosperity, as in Jb. 22" 3028 Ps. 9711. 9lt following Meg. 16b, translates light, "freedom to busy themselves with the Law"; joy, "and to keep the Sabbaths"; rejoicing, "the set feasts"; and honour, "to circumcise the fore- skins of their sons, and to place phylacteries upon their hands and upon their heads." On honour, see i4. The Jews in Susa are still meant. Now that they had become the King's favour- ites, all men hastened to flatter them. 17. And in every single province and in every single city, wher- ever the Kings command and his law arrived]. See on 43. — There was joy and rejoicing [2F1 + of heart] among the Jews, and ban- queting and holiday], in contrast to the fasting, weeping, lamenta- tion, haircloth, and ashes of 43, when Haman's edict was promul- gated.— And many of the heathen [05HL + were circumcised and] became Jews, [Jos. + to secure safety for themselves by this means,] for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.] So com- pletely were the tables turned, that it was now dangerous not to be a Jew. Heathen is literally peoples of the earth; not people of the land, AV. ; or peoples of the land, as RV. (see note). On fear had fallen upon them, cf. o/2f- Gn. 35s Ex. 15" Dt. n25 Ps. 105 38 al. THE JEWS REJOICE 281 The allusion to proselyting in this v. is one of the many indications of the late date of the book. There is no evidence that this took place before the Greek period. 14b. mm] + regis 3: ^J^dos-co &: exemplum epistolae 1C. — njnj] I no>s\* 0: pf. with 1 in a circumstantial clause. & takes it as a relative clause, 'in the word of the King and the law which had been given out in Susa.' — mon] om. J<8 (exc. x c- a, 936 under *): civitate regis H: Trep^xov rdde L (here L inserts 88-13). — NX"> »3*nDi] not impf. with ) consec. in sequence with the foregoing, but another circumstantial clause, unless regarded as an instance of the late use of the pf. with 1 connect, instead of impf. with 1 consec, as o23 (cf. Driver, Tenses, § 313). Here, however, the subject precedes the vb., as normally in a circumstantial clause. 15. YjomjoSo] om. iC <8 L (exc. n c- *™s, 936 under *).— mm rSar] om. CL(S (exc. n c. amgj g^b under *). — mm] t0-O?o &: et aereis H: deptprjp n c- », 936. — nSi-u - mojn] om. L (exc. 93a): Haupt deletes. — mopi] here only in Est., elsewhere in? (iu 217 68). — rhru] om. 3 & (£ £. — T"W»l] e* amictus 3: «at Siddrjfxa (§L: "|n3D QI1: a.X. from Aram. "p3 'enclose.' It denotes a sort of spacious outer mantle. — y\2] serico pallio 3: et byssinum C — jdjini] om. C: om. 1 (gL. — |B>w mym] ld6vres 8Z ol iu Zotfcots OILS. — nSns] usually 'neigh,' here of a shrill cry of joy, as Is. 126 541; pf. in continuation of the series of circumstantial clauses. — nnotnj om. L1C 06 (exc. n c- amg): -f- 6n A: pausal form of pf. 3 f. s. of stative vb. Haupt deletes as an explanatory gloss to the preceding word. 16. mis] om. 44, 106, 107: cf. Ps. 13912. Aram, and late Heb. for ms, and used with the same literal and figurative meanings. The transla- tion of ©' is a play upon the similar word NnniN 'law.' — rinnan] tt6tos L. — jtrti'i] K(bdo)v L: tQ Kvpt(f3 9eQ> 19: tevpUf t$ de$ loSb: om. U (S (exc. n c- a, 936 under *). — np>i] om. L3I 31 G£ (exc. 936 under *). — Sssi 2] om. «/« 3: + o &. — 3tfl DVl] /cal ei(ppodpd piNn] alterius gentis 3: tuv kQvdv (g: twv lovSaiuv L. The singular y\nr\ qjj means 'people of the land,' and is used either of the aboriginal Canaanites, as Gn. 23?- I2f- (P) Nu. 149 (JE) Ezr. 4*, or of the Israelites, as Ex. 55 (J) Lev. 4" 202- 4. The plural HUB "»Dj7 means always 'the 282 ESTHER peoples of the earth,' and is used of the heathen in contrast to Israel. So Dt. 2810 Jos. 424 1 K. 853- 60 1 Ch. 5" 2 Ch. 633 3219 Ezr. io2 Ne. io31 f- Ez. 3 112 Zp. 320. Similarly nwwn >ny 'peoples of the lands,' 2 Ch. 139 Ezr. 33 91 f- n Ne. 930 io29. From this plural a singular is formed in New Heb. with the meaning of 'one ignorant of the Law,' who is no better than a heathen (cf. Jn. 749). — brnnc] eorum religion* et caremoniis jungerentur 3 : i.-nno.Zf^P j$ : om. to end of v. L. This word is a Hithp. denom. from **WV (Stade § 164), d.\., and rare in New Heb. ©l QJ2 have p*Vjno, which is the usual later word for 'become a proselyte.' — Sdj "o] dia (& (ical 81a x *): propter 3j. — "\nc] + grandis 3: timorem qui /actus erat adversus inimicos £. — DrvSy] cunctos 3: om. i£ (& (exc. 936 under *). ON THE APPOINTED DAY THE JEWS DESTROY THEIR ENEMIES (91"10). 1. And in the twelfth month, that is, [Jos."86 + among the Jews] the month of Adar, [Jos. + but among the Macedonians Dustros,] on its thirteenth day]. The nine months that intervened since the second edict was sent out (89) are passed over in silence. — When the King's command and his law went into operation], lit. arrived to he done {cf. 43 817). According to the irrevocable law of 313, the heathen are to kill the Jews ; and, according to the equally irrev- ocable law of 8n, the Jews are to kill the heathen. Lively times are to be anticipated. — On the day, when the enemies of the Jews expected to domineer over them, it was changed [S^1 + by Heaven on account of the virtue of the forefathers] so that the Jews domineered over their enemies.] According to AV., Rys., the second clause is a continuation of the preceding temporal clause, and the apo- dosis does not come until the next v., but this is not so natural. 77 is impersonal (Keil, Sieg., Haupt). The characteristic avoid- ance of the name of God is seen here as in 4s 14- 16 61. 2. The Jews had assembled in their cities in all King Xerxes' provinces to lay hands upon those who wished them ill.] This is in accordance with the edict of 8". To lay hands, lit. to stretch forth a hand, is a synonym of kill, as in 221 y. The persons killed are not merely those who attack them, but also those who are known to be hostile, ''their haters" (v. '). See on 8". — And no man had stood out against them], lit. had stood before them. Stood might THE JEWS KILL THEIR ENEMIES 283 mean took a stand, as in 4H 51 77; but from q3 16 it appears that the Jews encountered opposition, so that we must translate had kept a stand, as in 8n 916 Jos. io8 2144 23s. The enemies of the Jews attacked them in accordance with the edict of 313, but they had no enthusiasm and were easily defeated. — For the fear of them had fallen upon all the races.] See on 817. 3. And all the officials of the provinces and the satraps and the governors, [Jl + and every dignitary in every place,] and those who did the King's business had been helping the Jews, for the fear of Mordecai had fallen upon them.] See on 39- 12. The royal offi- cials have no difficulty in seeing which edict they would better enforce. They everywhere take the side of the Jews and help them kill the heathen. Granted that such an edict could be sent out, this is doubtless the natural result. 4. For Mordecai was [S1 + overseer and] great [©! + and steward] in the King's house, [J + and had much power,] and the report of him kept going through all the provinces, for the man Mordecai [5F1 -f was master of the house and father to the King and] grew greater and greater.] This is an explanation of the last clause of the preceding v. All the provinces learned that Morde- cai was so powerful that his vengeance would surely overtake any one who showed himself hostile to the Jews. On King's house, see 28. Grew greater and greater is lit. was growing and was great. 5. So among all their enemies the Jews made a smiting with the sword, and a slaughter [S1 + with maul-clubs] and a destruction [(E1 + of lives.] Made, lit. smote, is followed by the cognate ace. smiting and the synonyms slaughter and destruction. Cf the terms of the decree in 8". — And they did with their enemies as they pleased.] Did with is used in the sense of did to as i15 68. This is more than self-defence. All that were known to be hostile to the Jews were hunted out and killed. 6. [Jos.288 + So the King's decree was carried out in all the country that was subject to him] and in Susa the fortress the Jews slew and annihilated 500 men [(51 + all the chieftains of the house of Amalek.] On Susa the fortress, see i2. This slaughter took place in the palace-quarter under the King's very eyes. It 284 ESTHER indicates the presence of a considerable body of Jews in Susa (cf. 4"). 7-10. Meanwhile they slew Parshanddthd, and Dalphon, and 'Aspdtha, and Pordtha, and 'Adalyd, and 'Aridhdthd, and Par- mashtd, and 'Arisay, and 'Ariday, and Wayzatha, the ten sons of Haman, son of Hamnfddthd, [Vrss. + the Agagite,] the enemy of the Jews, [Jl + whose names are these.] On the origin and meaning of these names, see p. 70. The Massora prescribes that they are to be written in a perpendicular column on the right side of the page, with and on the left side. This arrangement is followed in most of the printed editions. The reason for it is found in haggadic legends as to the way in which the sons of Haman were hanged. See on 914, and Buxtorf, Synag. Jud., Basel, 1680, pp. 557-559. In the first name, the Massora prescribes that th shall be written smaller than the other letters; in Parmashta, that sh shall be small; and in Wayzatha, w large and z small. These peculiar letters may indicate early attempts to correct the text (cf. Baer-Strack, Diqduqe hatte'amim, 61, p. 48/.). They are known already to BT., for Meg. 16b directs that the 1 of Wayzatha shall be written large, to show that the ten sons were all hanged on one gallows (cf. v. 14). Meg. also directs that the names of the ten shall be uttered in one breath, because their souls left their bodies at one time. — But on the plunder they did not lay their hands], although permitted to do so by the King (8U). According to RaShI they left this for the King, so that he would not permit the princes of Trans-Euphrates to disturb their brethren. Similarly IE., Esti. According to Men., Tir., Lap., it was to avoid suspicion of having attacked their enemies for mercenary reasons ; accord- ing to Grot, al., to prevent the heathen from saying that they had enriched them, as Abraham in Gn. 1422 f. 1. om. L 2j. — xin] quern vocari ante jam diximus 3. — cnn] om. 3 # (&. — 13 Dv] om. &: rod firjvds (g>. — mtrynS - -itrx] quando cunctis Judceis inter- fectio parabatur 3J. — ■»*] om. ] &. — "0"i] to. ypa/jL/jLCLTa to ypcKptvra v-rrb (g: to. ypafifxara 44, 106, 107. — nit^n1? urn] om. CI (exc. n c amg> g^ under *). — ona-ova] Haupt deletes as a scribal expansion. — far- ova] om. &. — "\tt>N ova] et 31. — wn - t-'n] om. KJC3 - W^] airdoXovro oi avriKeifjievoi tois lovdaiois (&: Judcei superiores esse cceperunt et se de adversariis vindicate 3. — ijoSc"1] 2. om. 3G. — onjn - V?npj] om. L(g (exc. 936 under *): pr. 1 30. — iSnpj] pf., as -o^ovvTo yap avrofc L. — oiuo]formido magnitudinis eorum 3. — D^Oprl Sd ■>?] om. CI L: Haupt deletes the whole clause from *3 to D-'Dyn as an illogical scribal expansion. 3. Sdi] nam et 3: 7«p (&: et H: 5£ L. — rwiDJl] t«v car pair (av C£HJ: om. L. — mnom] om. Yl/ama quoque nominis ejus crescebat J: irpoviireaev yap rb irpbcraypja tov Pas exOpovs 249. — unn] pr. 9^05 cwm 3: om. L